|
17/06/2024 |
AUDI AG |
UPC_CoA_221/2024 |
App_34216/2024 |
ORD_36278/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/06/2024 |
Volkswagen AG |
UPC_CoA_220/2024 |
App_34211/2024 |
ORD_36281/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/06/2024 |
Volkswagen AG |
UPC_CoA_222/2024 |
App_34219/2024 |
ORD_36276/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/06/2024 |
Volkswagen AG |
UPC_CoA_218/2024 |
App_34189/2024 |
ORD_36285/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/06/2024 |
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited |
UPC_CFI_52/2023 |
App_30430/2024 |
ORD_34041/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Successful application for protection of confidential information |
RoP 262A |
|
|
16/06/2024 |
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited |
UPC_CFI_52/2023 |
App_30430/2024 |
ORD_35922/2024 |
Application RoP262A |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
16/06/2024 |
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. Syngenta Limited |
UPC_CFI_201/2024 |
ORD_33490/2024 |
ORD_33490/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
13/06/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
App_35009/2024 |
ORD_35648/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
12/06/2024 |
Samsung v Headwater |
UPC_CFI_54/2024 |
App_29928/2024 |
ORD_30693/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Change of language request granted. |
Rule 323 RoP, change language, Art. 49.5 UPCA |
|
|
06/06/2024 |
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers |
UPC_CFI_241/2023 |
ACT_549585/2023 |
ORD_598364/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division |
Italian |
|
|
|
|
|
04/06/2024 |
Nera Innovations Ltd. v Xiaomi |
UPC_CoA_205/2024 |
App_31209/2024 |
ORD_31569/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
04/06/2024 |
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH |
UPC_CFI_54/2023 |
App_27608/2024 |
ORD_28831/2024 |
Procedural Order |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
04/06/2024 |
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v. Toyota Motor Europe |
UPC_CoA_79/2024 |
APL_9578/2024 |
ORD_30505/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
04/06/2024 |
Daedalus Prime LLC v. Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CoA_183/2024 |
App_30470/2024 |
ORD_31567/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
03/06/2024 |
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH v. Ballinno B.V. |
UPC_CFI_151/2024 |
ACT_16267/2024 |
ORD_39782/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. As soon as a patent proprietor has knowledge of the alleged infringement, it must investigate it, take the necessary measures to clarify it and obtain the documents required to support its claims. A longer period (here almost three months) without significant efforts to clarify the possible patent infringement has to be considered as not treating the matter with the necessary urgency. 2. On the technologies used in the “Video Assistant Referee” (VAR) decision making process in a game of football. |
Rule 211(3) RoP. Degree of certainty;, preliminary injunction, Rule 211(3) RoP. Degree of certainty; |
|
|
30/05/2024 |
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_26/2024 |
App_22744/2024 |
ORD_25299/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
The circumstances relate to the specific case and the position of the parties result in a change of language to English. The existence of parallel proceedings in other countries does not appear to be relevant in a case where each party is confronted with similar issues arising from these ongoing disputes. |
language of proceeding |
|
|
28/05/2024 |
Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S |
UPC_CoA_22/2024 |
APL_3507/2024 |
ORD_25123/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
1. Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy and a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, to the extent that European Union Law is concerned, Article 47 of the Charter. These provisions must also be applied and interpreted in accordance with Articles 41(3), 42 and 52(1) UPCA on the basis of the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity (point 2 of the Preamble of the RoP). 2. In accordance with these principles, proceedings must be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance to take place within one year whilst recognizing that complex actions may require more time and procedural steps, and simple actions less time and fewer procedural steps (point 7 of the Preamble of the RoP). Case management must be organized in accordance with this objective (point 7 of the Preamble of the RoP). It follows that, as a general principle, the Court will not stay proceedings. Otherwise, the Court cannot ensure that the final oral hearing will normally take place within one year. 3. The mere fact that the revocation proceedings before the UPC relate to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO is not sufficient to allow an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay proceedings. The Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the UPCA allow third parties to challenge the validity of a patent in both opposition and revocation proceedings and allow them to initiate revocation proceedings while opposition proceedings relating to the same patent are pending. 4. The principle of avoiding irreconcilable decisions does not require that the UPC always stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings. Firstly, decisions in which the UPC and EPO issue different rulings on the revocation of a European patent are not irreconcilable. Where one body upholds the patent and the other revokes it, the latter decision will prevail. Secondly, the interests of harmonising decisions on the validity of a European patent can be promoted by ensuring that the body that decides last can take the decision of the body that decides first into account in its decision. That means that the interests of harmonisation in general do not require a stay by the UPC where it can be expected that the UPC will issue its decision first. 5. Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. The terms “rapid” and “rapidly” in these provisions must be interpreted in the light of the principles set out above and the relevant circumstances of the case, such as the stage of the opposition proceedings and the stage of the revocation proceedings. The term “may” in Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP means that the Court has a discretionary power to stay the proceedings when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. Whether or not a stay is granted depends on the balance of the interests of the parties. 6. The mere fact that the EPO has granted a request to accelerate the opposition proceedings is not sufficient to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC. Rule 298 RoP provides that the Court may stay its proceedings “in accordance with Rule 295(a) RoP” pending accelerated opposition proceedings. Therefore, in that situation the same criterion applies, namely the requirement of Rule 295(a) RoP that the decision in the opposition proceedings may be expected to be given rapidly. Obviously, acceleration is relevant to the assessment, since the pace of the proceedings determines when the decision of the EPO can be expected. Acceleration as such is however not sufficient for establishing the expectation of a rapid decision within the meaning of Rule 295(a) RoP. |
Stay of revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings, Accelerated opposition proceedings, Appeal |
|
|
27/05/2024 |
NEC Corporation v TCL TCT |
UPC_CFI_498/2023 |
App_24843/2024 |
ORD_26434/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
Request to shorten deadlines rejected. Request to extend deadlines granted. |
request to extend deadlines, wrong appendixes, request to shorten deadlines |
|
|
22/05/2024 |
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC |
UPC_CoA_225/2023 |
App_27159/2024 |
ORD_29621/2024 |
Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/05/2024 |
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC |
UPC_CoA_224/2024 |
App_27158/2024 |
ORD_29615/2024 |
Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/05/2024 |
AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CoA_225/2023 |
App_29006/2024 |
ORD_29899/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/05/2024 |
AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CoA_225/2023 |
App_28998/2024 |
ORD_29918/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/05/2024 |
AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CoA_219/2024 |
App_29007/2024 |
ORD_29909/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/05/2024 |
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v Network Systems Technologies LLC |
UPC_CoA_223/2024 |
App_27157/2024 |
ORD_29608/2024 |
Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
22/05/2024 |
Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies |
UPC_CoA_225/2023 |
App_29005/2024 |
ORD_29903/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
EN
DE
IT