Moteur de recherche
dans les décisions
de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet

Bienvenue dans ce moteur de recherche dans les décisions de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet (JUB)

À propos et fonctionnement

Cette base de données privée, maintenue par Pierre Véron, met gracieusement à votre disposition les décisions rendues publiques par la Juridiction unifiée du brevet depuis son entrée en activité le 1er juin 2023 et un moteur de recherche pour les explorer.

Elle contient aussi des traductions automatiques en anglais (de courtoisie et sans garantie)  des décisions qui n’ont pas été rendues en anglais (ainsi que quelques traductions automatiques en français).

Pour voir TOUTES les décisions disponibles, tapez une astérisque * dans la case Recherche globale.

Recherche par mots (“preuve”,“evidence” ou “beweis”) ou par expressions (“procédure accélérée”, “accelerated proceedings” ou “beschleunigtes verfahren”).

Utilisation possible des opérateurs booléens (en anglais et en majuscules) :

  • test AND anticorps” , “test AND antibodies” ou “test AND antikörper
  • avocat OR représentant”,  “lawyer OR representative” ou “anwalt OR vertreter
  • test AND NOT anticorps”, “test AND NOT antibodies” ou “test AND NOT antikörper

Joker pour un caractère: ? Joker pour plusieurs caractères: *

Pour plus d’informations sur la syntaxe de recherche cliquez ici


682 résultats trouvés




Date
Parties
Numéro de l'affaire
Numéro de registre
Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance
Type d'action
Juridiction - Division
Langue de procédure
Sommaire
Mots clés
Documents
Date Parties Numéro de l'affaire Numéro de registre Numéro de la décision ou de l'ordonnance Type d'action Juridiction - Division Langue de procédure Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
04/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_218/2023 App_67930/2024 ORD_68911/2024 Application Rop 265 Mannheim (DE) Local Division German 1. Im Rahmen der Anwendung der Gebührenerstattungstatbestände der Regel 370.9(b) und (c) VerfO kommt es auf den materiellen Stand des Verfahrens an. 2. Insbesondere in komplexen Verfahren, die durch eine Vielzahl von begleitenden Geheimnisschutz- und Vorlageanträgen gekennzeichnet sind, kommt eine Kürzung oder Verweigerung der Gebührenerstattung nach Regel 370.9(e) VerfO in Betracht. Kürzung oder Verweigerung der Gebührenerstattung
03/02/2025 Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.,v. Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Powerdeal Srl, Libra Energy, VDH Solar Groothandel, Coenergia Srl UPC_CFI_336/2024_UPC_CFI_605/2024 App_1872/2025 ORD_3004/2025 Generic application Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English    
03/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_219/2023 App_67924/2024 ORD_68886/2024 Application Rop 265 Mannheim (DE) Local Division German 1. Auch bei Erhöhung des Streitwerts einer Verletzungsklage verbleibt es bei der Rücknahme (auch) der Nichtigkeitswiderklage trotz der Erhöhung bei einer Rückerstattung aufgrund R 370.6 VerfO. 2.Bei Rücknahme erst kurz vor einem den Parteien mitgeteilten Termin zur Verkündung einer Entscheidung kommt eine Verweigerung oder Kürzung der Rückerstattung nach Regel 370.9(e)VerfO in Betracht. Rücknahme Nichtigkeitswiderklage Streitwerterhöhung
03/02/2025 Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_210/2023 App_67470/2024 ORD_68887/2024 Application Rop 265 Mannheim (DE) Local Division German Bei Rücknahme einer Klage nach Verkündung der Endentscheidung findet eine Gebührenerstattung nicht statt. Rücknahme Gebührenerstattung Endentscheidung
31/01/2025 Rematec Gmbh & Co Kg v. Europe Forestry B.V. UPC_CFI_340/2023 ACT_576606/2023 ORD_598550/2023 Infringement Action Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
30/01/2025 Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Holding Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh UPC_CFI_365/2023 ACT_578818/2023 ORD_598571/2023 Infringement Action Mannheim (DE) Local Division English    
30/01/2025 Adeia Guides Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited UPC_CFI_665/2024 App_4703/2025 ORD_5020/2025 Generic application Munich (DE) Local Division English   deadline extension
29/01/2025 C-Kore Systems Limited v. Novawell UPC_CFI_468/2023 App_65953/2024 ORD_68856/2024 Application Rop 365 Paris (FR) Local Division English    
29/01/2025 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited UPC_CFI_424/2023 App_68468/2024 ORD_68867/2024 Application Rop 265 The Hague (NL) Local Division English Withdrawal of the infringement claim as well as the counter claims granted and partial reimbursement of paid court fees ordered. Withdrawal
29/01/2025 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited UPC_CFI_424/2023 App_68474/2024 ORD_68648/2024 Generic application The Hague (NL) Local Division English Withdrawal of the infringement claim as well as the counter claims granted and partial reimbursement of paid court fees ordered, also in the counter claims. reimbursement, counterclaim
29/01/2025 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited UPC_CFI_424/2023 App_68465/2024 ORD_68866/2024 Application Rop 265 The Hague (NL) Local Division English Withdrawal of the infringement claim as well as the counter claims granted and partial reimbursement of paid court fees ordered. Withdrawal
28/01/2025 Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak Holding Gmbh, Kodak Gmbh, Kodak Graphic Communications Gmbh UPC_CFI_355/2023 ACT_578607/2023 ORD_598539/2023 Infringement Action Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a claim should normally be given their broadest technically sensible meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear. Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol do not provide a justification for excluding what is literally covered by the terms of the claims by a narrowing claim construction based on the description or the drawings. A narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by a skilled person can only be permitted if there are convincing reasons based on the circumstances of the individual case in question. 3. Implicit disclosure means no more than the clear, immediate and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned in a prior-art document. Therefore, “implicit disclosure” encompasses any feature which a person skilled in the art would objectively consider as necessarily implied in the explicit content of a prior-art document, e.g. in view of general scientific laws. A claimed feature is also implicitly disclosed if, in carrying out the teaching of a prior-art document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the terms of a claim. Whether a known product possesses an implicit feature does not depend on whether the skilled person's attention is drawn to precisely that feature by a prior art document or their common general knowledge, but merely on whether, from a purely objective perspective, said product inevitably must possess that feature. 4. To comply with Art. 123(2) EPC, the subject-matter of an amended claim must be directly and unambiguously taught to the skilled person by the original application. A direct teaching requires that the subject-matter is originally taught as specific, clearly defined and recognizable individual embodiment, either explicitly or implicitly, without the necessity of applying any deductive skills. An unambiguous teaching requires that it has to be beyond doubt – not merely probable – that the claimed subject-matter of an amended claim was disclosed as such in the application as originally filed. added matter, implicit disclosure, Long arm jurisdiction, narrowing claim construction
28/01/2025 Qualcomm Incorporated v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, Tecno Mobile Ltd, Infinix Mobility Ltd, Tekpoint GmbH, Galaxus Deutschland GmbH, UPC_CFI_421/2024 App_2710/2025 ORD_2863/2025 Application Rop 265 Munich (DE) Local Division English   Withdrawal, Reimbursement court fees
27/01/2025 Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs Gmbh UPC_CFI_244/2024_UPC_CFI_786/2024 ORD_4250/2025 ORD_4250/2025 Generic Order Munich (DE) Local Division German 1. If a small enterprise shows an operating loss in the most recently prepared annual financial statement and if assets are not available as security to a sufficient extent, security is to be ordered at the request of the opposing party in accordance with Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. When assessing the security, reasons of equity that become relevant for the subsequent determination of costs must be taken into account. This is because the assessment of the security must be based on the costs to be determined in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA; according to Art. 69 UPCA, reasons of equity may preclude the bearing of costs in whole or in part. 3. The possibility of a reduction of fees or costs for the purpose of granting effective access to justice is a principle determining UPC law. This must also be taken into account with respect to equity when assessing the amount of a security to be provided by a small enterprise. 4. A party that is able to pay both its own costs (court fees and representation costs) and a security set by the court is able to bear the costs. Legal aid cannot be granted in this case. security, small enterprise
27/01/2025 Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v. Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs Gmbh UPC_CFI_244/2024_UPC_CFI_786/2024 ORD_4288/2025 ORD_4288/2025 Generic Order Munich (DE) Local Division German 1. Weist ein Kleinunternehmen im zuletzt erstellten Jahresabschluss einen Betriebsverlust aus und stehen Vermögenswerte als Sicherheit nicht in ausreichendem Maße zur Verfügung, ist auf Antrag des Gegners eine Sicherheitsleistung nach Regel 158 EPGVerfO anzuordnen. 2. Bei der Bemessung der Sicherheitsleistung sind für die spätere Kostenfestsetzung maßgeblich werdende Billigkeitsgründe zu berücksichtigen. Denn die Bemessung der Sicherheitsleistung hat sich an den nach Art. 69 EPGÜ festzusetzenden Kosten zu orientieren; nach Art. 69 EPGÜ können Billigkeitsgründe der Kostentragung ganz oder teilweise entgegenstehen. 3. Bei der Möglichkeit einer Gebühren- bzw. Kostenreduktion zum Zwecke der Gewährung des wirksamen Zugangs zum Recht handelt es sich um einen das EPG-Recht bestimmenden Grundsatz. Dieser ist als Billigkeitserwägung auch bei der Bemessung einer von einem Kleinunternehmen zu erbringenden Sicherheitsleistung zu beachten. 4. Eine Partei, die sowohl ihre eigenen Kosten (Gerichtsgebühren und Vertretungskosten) als auch eine gerichtlich festgesetzte Sicherheit leisten kann, ist zur Kostentragung im Stande. Prozesskostenhilfe kann in diesem Fall nicht bewilligt werden. Kleinunternehmen
27/01/2025 Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation UPC_CFI_755/2024 App_2740/2025 ORD_3075/2025 - Munich (DE) Local Division German If an applicant withdraws the application for interim measures after an ex parte order has been issued but before it has been reviewed, reimbursement of the court fees paid in the amount of 20% pursuant to Rule 370.9 (b) (iii) of the Rules of Procedure may be considered by analogy. Ex-parte Anordnung, Rücknahme, Ex-parte Anordnung, Antrag auf Erlass einstweiliger Maßnahmen, Gebührenerstattung
27/01/2025 Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer Gmbh, Asustek (Uk) Limited UPC_CFI_302/2024 ACT_33753/2024 ORD_68771/2024 Infringement Action Munich (DE) Local Division German    
27/01/2025 Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Asustek (Uk) Limited, Asus Computer Gmbh, Asustek Computer Inc. UPC_CFI_302/2024 ORD_4350/2025 ORD_4350/2025 Generic Order Munich (DE) Local Division German    
27/01/2025 Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft Mbb UPC_CFI_52/2023 App_65499/2024 ORD_68640/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Munich (DE) Local Division German    
24/01/2025 Alpinestars Research S.P.A, Ulrich Herpich E.K, Alpinestars S.P.A., Omnia Retail S.R.L. , Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy , Motocard Bike, S.L. v. Dainese S.P.A. UPC_CFI_472/2024 App_63878/2024 ORD_68844/2024 Application RoP262A Milan (IT) Local Division English Rule, 262 A.6 .RoP (“The number of persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings) which is designed to protect the principle of the adversarial process, may be derogated: A) with parties' consent; B) in the event of interference of the patent system with the antitrust system: the Community system expressly allows that access is not granted to natural persons but only to their advisers (see EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ‘Communication on the protection of confidential information by national courts in proceedings concerning the private enforcement of EU competition law’ (2020/C 242/01, para. 61 rule 262 A ROP
24/01/2025 Tcl Deutschland Gmbh & Co. Kg, Tcl Operations Polska Sp. Z.O.O, Tct Mobile Germany Gmbh, Tct Mobile Europe Sas UPC_CFI_487/2023 App_2192/2025 ORD_2322/2025 Application Rop 265 Munich (DE) Local Division English In accordance with Rule 370 RoP, analogous court fees are payable for the filing of a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer. Reimbursement court fees, Counterclaim FRAND-offer, Obligation to pay court fees, Withdrawal
24/01/2025 Dexcom, Inc. / Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V UPC_CoA_505/2024 App_68655/2024 ORD_68847/2024 Application Rop 265 Luxembourg (LU) English    
24/01/2025 Institute Of Professional Representatives Before The European Patent Office v. Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, Microsoft Corporation UPC_CFI_164/2024 App_67889/2024 ORD_67980/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The interest in ensuring that the parties present their arguments and evidence and that the Court conducts the proceedings impartially and independently, without influence and interference from external parties in the public sector, is of the paramount importance and, as such, prevails over the competing interest in access to the case file where this latter interest cannot be satisfied through access to the written pleadings or evidence of the proceedings as the matter at hand concerns a purely legal and general issue. public access to register
24/01/2025 Dexcom, Inc. / Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V UPC_CoA_569/2024 ORD_3184/2025 ORD_3184/2025 Generic Order Luxembourg (LU) English    
24/01/2025 Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S UPC_CFI_54/2024-UPC_CFI_396/2024 App_66588/2024 ORD_68686/2024 Amend Document Munich (DE) Local Division English    
1 2 ... 28