|
24/07/2024 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. Laser Components SAS |
UPC_CFI_440/2023 |
ORD_41423/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division |
French |
|
1. Dans le cadre de l'article 33 (4) AJUB, les parties au litige doivent être les mêmes dans les deux instances, peu importe leurs positions procédurales, le demandeur peut être défendeur dans la seconde et vice-versa et ce, dans le but d’éviter que plusieurs divisions soient saisies de la question de la validité du même brevet par les mêmes parties, dans un but d’efficacité, d’économie des moyens et pour éviter le risque de décisions irréconciliables au sein de la JUB. 2. La Cour relève aussi que tant l’article 33.4 de l’UPCA [AJUB] que la règle 118.2 du RdP sont des règles spéciales et autonomes spécifiques à la compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB. Pourtant, il est pertinent pour interpréter la notion de « mêmes parties » de raisonner par analogie avec les règles de compétence entre les différentes juridictions au sein de l’UE en matière de « lis pendens » (Règlements de Bruxelles I). 3. En outre, la Cour, plus généralement quand elle statue sur une demande de sursis (règle 295 (g) et (m) RdP), doit prendre en compte, au vu du principe directeur d’efficacité du règlement de procédure de la JUB (préambule point 7), l’état de la procédure respective au sein des deux divisions concernées pour décider s’il est opportun d’attendre la décision de la Division Centrale de Paris sur la question de la compétence. |
compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB, Intervention, compétence interne au sein des divisions de la JUB, R. 118.2 RdP, R. 118.2 RdP, Intervention, Identité des parties |
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Himson Engineering Private Limited v. Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
ORD_28787/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited |
UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
ORD_40568/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
23/07/2024 |
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A |
UPC_CoA_177/2024 |
ORD_36778/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.1 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
1. An application for the preservation of evidence or inspection of premises within the meaning of Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP implies a request to disclose to the applicant the outcome of the measures, including the report written by the person who carried out the measures. This follows from the fact that the legitimate purpose of the measures is the use of the evidence in proceedings on the merits of the case (Rules 196.2 and 199.2 RoP), which includes the use of the evidence to decide whether to initiate proceedings on the merits and to determine whether and to what extent the evidence will be submitted in these proceedings. Disclosure of the evidence to the applicant or to certain persons acting on behalf of the applicant is indispensable for that purpose. Moreover, Rules 196.1 and 199.1 RoP provide that the Court may decide in its order that the evidence shall be disclosed to certain named persons and shall be subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure. This confirms that the procedure initiated by an application under Article 60 UPCA aims at not merely the preservation of evidence and the inspection of premises as such, but also at the disclosure of the evidence to the applicant. 2. However, the granting of an application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises does not imply an unconditional order to disclose the evidence to the applicant. Pursuant to Article 60(1) UPCA the order must be subject to the protection of confidential information (see also Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, hereinafter: Directive 2004/48/EC). Where the evidence may contain confidential information, this entails that the Court must hear the other party before deciding whether and to what extent to disclose the evidence to the applicant. In this context, the Court must give the other party access to the evidence and must provide that party with the opportunity to request the Court to keep certain information confidential and to provide reasons for such confidentiality. If the other party makes such a confidentiality request, the Court must provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond in a manner that respects the potential confidentiality interests of the other party. The Court may do this, for example, by granting access only to the representatives of the applicant whom the Court, pursuant to Rule 196.3(a) RoP, has authorised to be present during the execution of the measures and subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure. 3. The opportunity for the other party to make a confidentiality request must be distinguished from the remedies available against the order for the preservation of evidence or the inspection of premises, such as the review of an order for preservation of evidence without hearing the defendant pursuant to Rule 197.3 RoP. Therefore, the Court must hear the other party on the request for disclosure even if this party has decided not to file a remedy against the order to preserve evidence or inspect premises. For the same reasons, the failure to apply for a review of an order for the preservation of evidence or for the inspection of premises, cannot not be considered as a tacit approval of the disclosure of evidence. 4. Pursuant to Article 60(8) UPCA the Court shall ensure that measures to preserve evidence or to inspect premises are revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, at the defendant’s request, if the applicant does not bring, within a period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is longer, action leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the Court (see also Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC and Article 50(6) of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). Rules 198.1 and 199.2 RoP specify that the time period runs from the date specified in the Court’s order, taking into account the date when the report referred to in Rule 196.4 RoP is to be presented. These rules must be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the measures for the preservation of evidence or inspection of premises, which is to use the outcome of these measures in the proceedings on the merits of the case (Rules 196.2 and 199.2 RoP). In view of this, the Court must, as a general principle, specify in its order a time period that starts to run from the date of disclosure of the evidence to the applicant or from the date on which the Court has made a final decision not to grant the applicant access to the evidence. |
Time period to bring an action leading to a decision on the merits of the case, Measures to preserve evidence, Appeal, Protection of confidential information, Measures to inspect premises |
|
|
23/07/2024 |
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE |
UPC_CFI_75/2023-UPC_CFI_80/2023 |
ORD_42880/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2024 |
Hewlett-Packard, HP v. Dolby International AB |
UPC_CFI_457/2023 |
ORD_25519/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Sofern vom Gericht nichts anderes angeordnet wurde, wird der Streithelfer gemäß R. 315.4 VerfO als Partei behandelt. Auch für ihn gilt daher R. 262A.6 VerfO. Er hat deshalb einen Anspruch darauf, dass der Kreis der Zugangsberechtigten zu als geheimhaltungsbedürftig eingestuften Informatio-nen neben seinen Prozessbevollmächtigten mindestens eine natürliche Person umfasst. |
Geheimnisschutz; Parteien; Streithelfer; Zugangsbeschränkung; Kreis der Zugangsberechtigten; gestuftes Geheimnisschutzregime |
|
|
22/07/2024 |
AYLO PREMIUM LTD |
UPC_CFI_471/2023 |
ORD_42880/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
19/07/2024 |
Meril Gmbh v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation |
UPC_CFI_15/2023 |
ORD_598366/2023 |
Counterclaim for revocation |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/07/2024 |
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation |
UPC_CFI_15/2023 |
ORD_598367/2023 |
Counterclaim for revocation |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
19/07/2024 |
Meril Italy srl v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation |
UPC_CFI_255/2023 |
ORD_598365/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/07/2024 |
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amgen Inc |
UPC 14/2023 |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
Counterclaim for revocation |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/07/2024 |
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH |
UPC 1/2023 |
ORD_598362/2023 |
Revocation Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
12/07/2024 |
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_363/2023 |
ORD_41235/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
11/07/2024 |
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v. TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG |
UPC_CFI_181/2023 |
ORD_41109/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
On the requirements for a partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure in the event of a withdrawal of an action which is declared following a hearing. |
Withdrawal of claim, Reimbursement of court fees |
|
|
11/07/2024 |
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v. TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG |
UPC_CFI_181/2023 |
ORD_598303/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
On the requirements for a partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure in the event of a withdrawal of an action that is declared subsequent to a hearing. |
Court fees |
|
|
11/07/2024 |
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG |
UPC_CoA_354/2024 |
ORD_41154/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
10/07/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
ORD_40950/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Auch im Kontext von Streitfällen, die sensible FRAND-Sachverhalte betreffen, kann der Zugang zu den schutzbedürftigen Informationen je nach den Umständen des Einzelfalles drei natürlichen Personen der Partei gewährt werden. 2. Zugang zu den schutzbedürftigen Informationen ist in vor dem EPG geführten Verfahren ausschließlich zugelassenen Vertretern nach Art. 48 EPGÜ zu gewähren, die die Parteien im konkreten Verfahren sowie in weiteren, vor dem EPG geführten Verfahren vertreten. Eine Weitergabe an Prozessvertreter, die in parallelen nationalen Verfahren bestellt sind, ist zum Zwecke der Verwendung in nationalen Verfahren nicht statthaft (entgegen Lokalkammer München, Spruchkörper 1, Anordnung vom 4. Juli 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023, ORD_26378/2024). |
SEP, FRAND, Geheimnisschutz |
|
|
10/07/2024 |
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG |
UPC_CFI_410/2023 |
ORD_35569/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
10/07/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
ORD_33477/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Auch im Kontext von Streitfällen, die sensible FRAND-Sachverhalte betreffen, kann der Zugang zu den schutzbedürftigen Informationen je nach den Umständen des Einzelfalles drei natürlichen Personen der Partei gewährt werden. 2. Zugang zu den schutzbedürftigen Informationen ist in vor dem EPG geführten Verfahren ausschließlich zugelassenen Vertretern nach Art. 48 EPGÜ zu gewähren, die die Parteien im konkreten Verfahren sowie in weiteren, vor dem EPG geführten Verfahren vertreten. Eine Weitergabe an Prozessvertreter, die in parallelen nationalen Verfahren bestellt sind, ist zum Zwecke der Verwendung in nationalen Verfahren nicht statthaft (entgegen Lokalkammer München, Spruchkörper 1, Anordnung vom 4. Juli 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023, ORD_26378/2024). |
SEP , FRAND, Geheimnisschutz |
|
|
09/07/2024 |
Panasonic v. OROPE, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications |
UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 |
ORD_40636/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
09/07/2024 |
Panasonic v. OROPE, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications |
UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 |
ORD_40642/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
08/07/2024 |
X v. OrthoApnea S.L. |
UPC_CFI_376/2023 |
ORD_37783/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division |
Dutch |
|
R. 13 RoP en het procedureel-evolutief van een gerechtelijk geschil laten toe aan een eisende partij om in zijn Repliek (“Reply to Statement of Defence”) in antwoord op de Verklaring van Verweer (“Statement of Defence”) van verwerende partij nieuwe feiten en argumenten aan te dragen en indien nodig zijn petitum hiermee in lijn te brengen indien (i) deze geen wijziging inhouden op het voorwerp van de procedure en (ii) indien deze in overeenstemming kunnen worden gebracht met wat van een normaal en voorzichtig persoon (geplaatst in dezelfde omstandigheden) mag worden verwacht . Indien het voorwerp van de procedure wordt aangetast, dient toepassing te worden gemaakt van R. 263 RoP. |
R. 263 Rules of Procedure, R. 13 Rule of Procedure, schriftelijke procedure, Front Loaded Procedure |
|
|
07/07/2024 |
Arm, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, SVF Holdco v ICPillar |
UPC_CoA_301/2024 |
ORD_40335/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
05/07/2024 |
10x Genomics v. Curio Bioscience |
UPC_CoA_234/2024 |
ORD_38556/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
04/07/2024 |
Panasonic v. Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock Mobile |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
ORD_40039/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. Zu den Details einer Anordnung zum Geheimnisschutz nach Regel 262A VerfO. 2. Die Einreichung von Schriftsätzen, die in der nicht-geschwärzten Fassung Schwärzungen aufweisen, ist regelmäßig unzulässig. 3. Werde die Einreichung ausnahmeweise zugelassen, so läuft die Erwiderungsfrist für die Gegenseite erst ab dem Zeitpunkt des Vorliegens einer vollständig ungeschwärzten Fassung. |
Schwärzungen, Fristenlauf, Geheimnisschutz |
|
FR
EN
IT
DE
NL