Pierre Véron

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


565 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
05/11/2024 Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v. SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council UPC_CFI_649/2024 ACT_59315/2024 ORD_59449/2024  Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
Italien flag IT
05/11/2024 Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH UPC_CFI_650/2024 ACT_59322/2024 ORD_59764/2024 Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
Italien flag IT
04/11/2024 Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers UPC_CFI_241/2023 ACT_549585/2023 ORD_598484/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
Italien flag IT
Anglais flag EN
04/11/2024 Mathys & Squire ./. Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka Universitiy UPC_CFI_75/2023 App_54214/2024 ORD_55220/2024 Application Rop262 3 Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section English Rule 262.3 RoP. Application requesting that information excluded from public access pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP may be made available to the applicant granted in the absence of legitimate reasons to withhold access. 262.3 RoP, burden of proof, making available information excluded from public access
Anglais flag EN
01/11/2024 Scandit AG v. Hand Held Products, Inc. UPC_CoA_520/2024 App_57474/2024 ORD_58165/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
31/10/2024 Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v. Valeo Electrification UPC_CFI_347/2024 ACT_37931/2024 ORD_56545/2024 Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. In case of European Patents, the material proprietor is deemed to be the patent proprietor for the purposes of proceedings before the UPC. However, if the patent proprietor is registered in the European Patent Register or in the national register(s), it may initially rely on a rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5 (c) RoP). This rebuttable presumption attached to the regis-tered patent is a strong presumption which can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if the title is manifestly erroneous. 2. If the defendant claims that the applicant is not acting in good faith because the applicant has unlawfully appropriated the patent in suit to its detriment, this cannot be taken into account in favour of the defendant in the weighing of interests if the defendant has failed to bring a vindication action in due time before the national courts. 3. In answering the question of whether the patent in suit is more likely to be invalid than not, no conclusions can be drawn from the general revocation rates of patents. Only relevant is the patent in suit. 4. Whether a delay is unreasonable within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There is no fixed deadline by which the applicant must submit its application for provisional measures. The question is always whether the applicant’s conduct as a whole justifies the conclusion that the enforcement of its rights is not urgent. preliminary injunction, Application for provisional measures, exceptional damage, entitlement, good faith, rebuttable presumption, weighing of interests, urgency
Anglais flag EN
31/10/2024 Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v. Valeo Electrification UPC_CFI_368/2024 ACT_39183/2024 ORD_56534/2024 Application for provisional measures Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. In case of European Patents, the material proprietor is deemed to be the patent proprietor for the purposes of proceedings before the UPC. However, if the patent proprietor is registered in the European Patent Register or in the national register(s), it may initially rely on a rebuttable presumption (R. 8.5 (c) RoP). This rebuttable presumption attached to the registered patent is a strong presumption which can only be rebutted in PI proceedings if the title is manifestly erroneous. 2. If the defendant claims that the applicant is not acting in good faith because the applicant has unlawfully appropriated the patent in suit to its detriment, this cannot be taken into account in favour of the defendant in the weighing of interests if the defendant has failed to bring a vindication action in due time before the national courts. 3. In answering the question of whether the patent in suit is more likely to be invalid than not, no conclusions can be drawn from the general revocation rates of patents. Only relevant is the patent in suit. 4. Whether a delay is unreasonable within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There is no fixed deadline by which the applicant must submit its application for provisional measures. The question is always whether the applicant’s conduct as a whole justifies the conclusion that the enforcement of its rights is not urgent. urgency, rebuttable presumption, weighing of interests, Application for provisional measures, preliminary injunction, good faith, exceptional damage, entitlement
Anglais flag EN
31/10/2024 SodaStream Industries Ltd. v. Aarke AB UPC_CFI_373/2023 ACT_580849/2023 ORD_598499/2023 Infringement Action Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. The claim must not be limited to the scope of preferred embodiments. The scope of a claim extends to subject-matter that the skilled person understands as the patentee's claim after interpretation using the description and drawings. A claim interpretation which is supported by the description and drawings as a whole is generally not limited by a drawing showing only a specific shape of a component. 2. Pursuant to Art. 69(1) S. 1 EPC, the extent of the protection conferred by a European Patent shall be determined by the claims. It is therefore the claim that defines the outer limit of the scope of protection. Nevertheless, the description and the drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. Prior art is not mentioned there. The limitation to the description and the drawings as interpretation material serves the purpose of legal certainty, since the scope of protection can be conclusively determined from the patent itself. This does not mean that prior art is irrelevant to the definition of the scope of the patent and thus to claim construction. If this prior art is discussed in the description of the patent in suit, the relevant consid-erations must be taken into account. If the patent distinguishes itself from the prior art in a particular way, an interpretation that negates that distinction must be avoided. 3. The right of publication includes a further element of punishment. Publication should therefore only be granted if the protection of the Claimant is not provided effectively and sufficiently ensured by other measures ordered. Gillette-Defense, order of publication of decisions, Interpretation of claim, preferred embodiments
Anglais flag EN
30/10/2024 Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v. Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH UPC_CFI_16/2024 App_59050/2024 ORD_59195/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German R. 36 VerfO, Zurückweisung, Zulassung weitere Schriftsätze  
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/10/2024 FUJIFILM Corporation v. 1. Kodak GmbH , 2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, 3. Kodak Holding GmbH UPC_CFI_355/2023 App_54506/2024 ORD_54796/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division English 1. The fact that the claimant has only one opportunity to submit written observations on the right of prior use is a consequence of the Rules of procedure and the time limits laid down therein. However, in order to give the claimant the opportunity to present further argu-ments if necessary, R. 36 RoP provides for the possibility of requesting permission to file additional pleadings. 2. In assessing the prospects of success of such a request, the Court must, on the one hand, have regard to the reasons put forward by the applicant as to why, in its view, further pleadings are necessary. However, the Court must also have regard to the effect of further pleadings on the further course of the proceedings and the risk of delay associated therewith. R. 36 RoP, prior use right, further exchanges of written pleadings
Anglais flag EN
29/10/2024 TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Sioen NV UPC_CFI_9/2024 App_10381/2024 ORD_16070/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division English    
Anglais flag EN
29/10/2024 Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., UPC_CoA_549/2024 App_53031/2024 ORD_53377/2024 Application Rop 223 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
29/10/2024 Dolby International AB v. Access Advance LLC v. HP UPC_CFI_457/2023 App_58951/2024 ORD_58984/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German Einvernehmliche Aussetzung des Verfahrens  
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
29/10/2024 TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Sioen NV UPC_CFI_9/2024 ACT_953/2024 ORD_65145/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division English    
Anglais flag EN
25/10/2024 Cretes NV v. Hyler BV UPC_CFI_216/2024 ORD_55012/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division Dutch    
Néerlandais flag NL
Anglais flag EN
24/10/2024 Tiroler Rohre GmbH UPC_CFI_98/2024 App_33127/2024 ORD_34196/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
24/10/2024 10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Vizgen, Inc. UPC_CFI_22/2023 App_49295/2024 ORD_58030/2024 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division German Antrag auf Geheimhaltung; Ausschluss jeglicher natürlicher Personen; Einverständnis der Parteien; Protective Order Regel 262A
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
24/10/2024 10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Vizgen, Inc. UPC_CFI_22/2023 App_49295/2024 ORD_49363/2024 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
24/10/2024 Easee Holding B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee B.V. UPC_CFI_525/2024 App_55164/2024 ORD_55580/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English Change of the language of the proceedings , R. 323 RoP, R. 324 RoP - Decision upon request for translation of existing pleadings and other documents  
Anglais flag EN
24/10/2024 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED UPC_CFI_427/2024 App_52964/2024 ORD_53290/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English    
Anglais flag EN
22/10/2024 Dehns v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Amgen, Inc. UPC_CFI_1/2023 App_47163/2024 ORD_47230/2025 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section English 262.1(b) application. Access to written pleadings and evidence. Other documents. 262.1(b) application, Access to written pleadings and evidence
Anglais flag EN
22/10/2024 Dehns v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Amgen, Inc. UPC_CFI_1/2023 App_47172/2024 ORD_47238/2024 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section English 262.1(b) application. Access to written pleadings and evidence. Other documents. 262.1(b) application, Access to written pleadings and evidence
Anglais flag EN
22/10/2024 Dehns v. Regeneron, Amgen, Inc. UPC_CFI_14/2023 App_47154/2024 ORD_47235/2025 Application RoP262.1 (b) Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section English 262.1(b) application. Access to written pleadings and evidence. Other documents. 262.1(b) application, Access to written pleadings and evidence
Anglais flag EN
21/10/2024 SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v. Dyson Technology UPC_CoA_297/2024 App_55674/2024 ORD_55853/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
20/10/2024 DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v. AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD UPC_CFI_471/2023 App_46521/2024 ORD_47055/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
1 ... 3 4 5 ... 23