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


307 résultats trouvés




Date
Parties
Numéro de l'affaire
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 la décision ou de l'ordonnance Type d'action Juridiction - Division Langue de procédure Details Sommaire Mots clés Documents
21/05/2024 Arm, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, SVF Holdco v ICPillar ORD_23494/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English 1. If the application for provisional measures is filed within two months, it cannot normally be concluded that there has been an unreasonable delay in the case of an alleged infringement in two or more countries and in view of the necessary prior examination as to whether the defendants' embodiments actually make use of the teaching of the patent in suit and whether a legal action is also possible with any prospect of success, as well as in view of the corresponding serious preparation of the proceedings. 2. The principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_335/2023 must be applied when interpreting the patent or certain features of the patent claim. This applies equally to the assessment of infringement and to the assessment of the validity of a European Patent. The appropriate protection for the patentee and the associated sufficient legal certainty for third parties is largely determined by the wording chosen by the patentee in the light of the description and the drawings. As a result, the interpretation may lead to a broader or narrower understanding. 3. Due to the summary nature of the examination of legal validity in proceedings for the grant of provisional measures, it is not possible to carry out a full examination of all the attacks on validity as in nullity proceedings. Rather, the number of arguments raised against validity must generally be reduced to the best three from the defendant's point of view. 4. Unless the successful party puts forward important reasons (e.g. the risk of the other party's insolvency), there is no reason to order provisional reimbursement of costs in proceedings for interim measures where - as in this case - the summary proceedings must be followed by main proceedings. unreasonably delay, claim construction, Application for provisional measures, validity of the patent in suit
Anglais flag EN
16/05/2024 STAUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH vs. Ralf Konrad, Hellmuth Konrad UPC_CFI_372/2023 ORD_29883/2023 Revocation Action Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat German   Erledigung; Verzicht auf das Patent; vorherige Verzichtsaufforderung; Kostengrundentscheidung
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
16/05/2024 Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v. Panasonic Holdings Corporation UPC_CFI_216/2023 ORD_6152/2024 Procedural Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
15/05/2024 Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) ORD_23557/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division English    
Anglais flag EN
14/05/2024 Dolby International AB v. Hewlett-Packard, HP UPC_CFI_457/2023 ORD_23441/2024 Amend Document Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German Richtet sich eine Klage zunächst gegen sämtliche, einer bestimmten Gattung zugehörigen Geräte des Beklagten und erklärt der Kläger sodann, dass bestimmte Geräte in einer spezifischen Konfiguration nicht von der Klage erfasst sein sollen, kann es sich dabei um eine nachträgliche bedingungslose Beschränkung des Klageanspruchs im Sinne von R. 263.3 VerfO handeln. Beschränkung des Klageanspruchs, Kosten, bedingungslose Beschränkung, Teilrücknahme
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
14/05/2024 Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers ORD_27218/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
Italien flag IT
Anglais flag EN
13/05/2024 Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH UPC_CFI_127/2024 ORD_26476/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division German Antrag auf Verlängerung der Einspruchsfrist zur Angleichung der gegen verschiedene Beklagten laufenden Fristen. Angleichung, Fristverlängerungsantrag, Einspruch
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
13/05/2024 SES-imagotag SA v. Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. UPC_CoA_1/2024 ORD_17447/2024 Appeal RoP220.1 Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
10/05/2024 CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. ORD_24708/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat German Anordnung der Simultanverdolmetschung, Art. 109 VerfO  
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
10/05/2024 Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH UPC_CFI_589997/2023 ORD_7903/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. standstill agreement, jurisdiction
Anglais flag EN
09/05/2024 TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH UPC_CFI_498/2023 ORD_26426/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English Dealing with the situation where the claimant has submitted the wrong annexes to the statement of claim. wrong annexes, extension of time limits on request, amendment of the statement of claim
Anglais flag EN
08/05/2024 AUDI AG v. Network System Technologies LLC UPC_CFI_514/2023 ORD_26339/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division English preliminary objection rule 19 RoP, request rule 361 RoP, withdrawal of opt out rule 5 RoP, infringement read withdrawal of opt out rule 5, preliminary objection rule 19 RoP, infringement read, request rule 361 RoP
Anglais flag EN
06/05/2024 Photon Wave, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components UPC_CFI_440/2023 ORD_18404/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division Français    
Français flag FR
Anglais flag EN
06/05/2024 Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG UPC_CFI_223/2025 ORD_23384/2024 Application RoP262A Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division Italian    
Italien flag IT
Anglais flag EN
06/05/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_223/2023 ORD_25614/2024 Rule 264 Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
06/05/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_223/2023 ORD_25608/2024 Rule 264 Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
06/05/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_218/2023 ORD_25617/2024 Rule 264 Order Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
02/05/2024 Nokia Technology GmbH v. Mala Technologies Ltd. UPC_CFI-484/2023 ORD_13023/2024 Preliminary objection Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division English   lis pendens, Art 29-31 Brussels I Reg recast
Anglais flag EN
02/05/2024 PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v. AWM, Schnell UPC_CoA_177/2024 APL_20002/2024 Generic application Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English    
Anglais flag EN
01/05/2024 Keestrack N.V. v. Geha Laverman B.V. UPC_CFI_379/2023 ACT_ 581723/2023 Generic application Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division Dutch Beslissing tot beëindiging van de inbreukprocedure na intrekkingsverzoek van eiser. Restitutie bevel. R.265.2 en R. 370.9 en 11 RoP R.265 en R.370.9 en 11 RoP
Néerlandais flag NL
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Curio Bioscience Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc. UPC_CFI_463/2023 ORD_23580/2024 Generic Order Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division German 1. If in the case of a European patent a person is registered as the patent proprietor in the respective national register, there is a rebuttable presumption that the person recorded in the respective national register is entitled to be registered (R. 8.5(c) RoP). The result of such a legal presumption is to reverse the burden of explanation and proof with regard to the presumed fact. If the Applicant can refer to his listing in the registers relevant to the respective dispute, it is up to the Defendant's side to set out and, if necessary, prove that the Applicant is not entitled to be registered. 2. If a patent claim contains stated purposes, these usually serve to improve understanding of the invention. As a rule, they have the indirect effect of defining the subject matter protected by the patent in such a way that it must not only fulfil the spatial-physical features, but must also be designed to be usable for the purpose stated in the patent claim. 3. If the Applicant lacks positive knowledge of an infringement of property rights, grossly negligent ignorance or wilful blindness to an infringement of intellectual property rights is considered equivalent to such knowledge. The patent proprietor is not under a general obligation to observe the market. However, as soon as the holder of a property right becomes aware of specific circumstances that suggest an infringement of his property right, he is expected to take all measures readily available to him and to further clarify the circumstances. It is up to the Defendant to explain such circumstances triggering a duty to provide information. 4. While Art. 69(4) EPC only provides for the provision of security for costs by the claimant, R. 158 RoP extends the group of addressees of such an Order to include "the Parties" and thus also the Defendant in the main action. In urgent proceedings, there is neither scope nor (with regard to R. 211.1(d) RoP) a need for the (analogous) application of the provision, given the urgent nature of such proceedings. stated purpose, security for costs, urgency, knowledge of infringement, Right to bring an action, negligent ignorance, weigh-up of interests, presumption, register
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_218/2023 ORD_14581/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_219/2023 ORD_14600/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock UPC_CFI_223/2023 ORD_14603/2024 Generic application Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division German    
Allemand flag DE
Anglais flag EN
30/04/2024 Carrier Corporation v. BITZER Electronics A/S UPC_CFI_263/2023 ORD_24607/2024 Application to review a case management Order (RoP333) into a Revocation Action Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat English The request to amend a patent must refer to claims that have been challenged and, therefore, it is inadmissible to the extent that it concerns unchallenged claims. Request to amend the patent; unchallenged claims
Anglais flag EN
1 ... 3 4 5 ... 13