|
17/09/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE |
UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 |
App_52033/2024 |
ORD_52137/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1.Beweisanträge, die nach Abschluss des Zwischenverfahrens gestellt sind, sind regelmäßig zurückzuweisen. 2. Ein Parteigutachter, der zu methodischen Fragen eines ökonomischen Gutachtens befragt werden soll, ist kein Zeuge. Es kommt allenfalls eine Anhörung nach Regel 181 VerfO in Betracht. 3. Ob unter Umständen weitere Beweise erforderlich sind, kann der Spruchkörper gemäß Regel 114 VerfO entscheiden. |
Parteisachverständiger, Zeuge, Antrag nach Abschluss des Zwischenverfahrens |
|
|
17/09/2024 |
Meril v. Edwards |
UPC_CFI_189/2024 |
App_45333/2024 |
ORD_45922/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/09/2024 |
Dexcom International Limited |
UPC_CFI_424/2023 |
App_44664/2024 |
ORD_45345/2024 |
Amend Document |
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division |
English |
|
Leave to amend counter claim with a declaration of non-infringement granted after withdrawal of the infringement claim against one device (of two). R. 263.2 RoP requirements complied with. |
amendment of claim |
|
|
17/09/2024 |
Volkswagen AG v. Network System Technologies LLC |
UPC_CoA_218/2024 |
APL_25922/2024 |
ORD_48922/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
17/09/2024 |
Powell Gilbert LLP v. Ballinno B.V., Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH |
UPC_CFI_151/2024 |
App_39793/2024 |
ORD_40128/2024 |
Application RoP262.1 (b) |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. When a request to make written pleadings and evidence available to a member of the public is made pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of getting access to the written pleadings and evidence must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. 2. A party can at any stage – also after the end of the proceedings – request for confidentiality of certain information submitted under R.262.2 RoP. 3. The general line of argument as well as the nature of evidence provided by the parties of the main proceedings as well as the working of the Court can be examined by the applicant based on the redacted versions. |
Application R. 262.1 (b) RoP; Confidentiality request R. 262.2 RoP; Art. 45 UPCA. |
|
|
16/09/2024 |
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. ITCiCo Spain S.L. |
UPC_CFI_412/2023 |
App_5975/2024 |
ORD_51965/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/09/2024 |
ICPillar LLC v. Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited |
UPC_CoA_301/2024 |
APL_33746/2024 |
ORD_50692/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
16/09/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L |
UPC_CFI_ 219/2023 |
ACT_545615/2023 |
ORD_598442/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Zur Strukturierung einer SEP-Verhandlung |
SEP, FRAND, mündliche Verhandlung |
|
|
16/09/2024 |
Panasonic Holdings v. Guangdong OPPO, OROPE |
UPC_CFI_ 210/2023 |
ACT_545551/2023 |
ORD_598440/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
Zur Strukturierung einer SEP-Verhandlung |
SEP, FRAND, mündliche Verhandlung |
|
|
13/09/2024 |
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., |
UPC_CFI_390/2023 |
ACT_583273/2023 |
ORD_598464/2023 |
Infringement Action |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
1. The subject-matter of the invention as derived from the description and drawings is protected only if it is so expressed in the language of the claims. 2. If several embodiments are presented in the description as being in accordance with the claimed invention, the terms used in the patent claim shall, in case of doubt, be understood in such a way that all embodiments fall under the claim construction. 3. A patent infringer under the UPCA is a person who acts as a manufacturer or supplier, or who appears to the relevant trade to be such a person, and who manufactures and/or sells the goods in his own name and for his own account. 4. If a company infringes a patent, the issuance of an order pursuant to Art. 63(1), 2nd sentence, UPCA (order against intermediaries) may be considered with regard to the organs that company. |
Res judicata effects of foreign decisions, Right to be sued, Intermediary, Claim construction |
|
|
13/09/2024 |
Grundfos Holding A/S v. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. |
UPC_CFI_11/2024 |
ACT_2097/2024 |
ORD_50641/2024 |
Generic Order |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
Einheitliche Verhandlung Klage und Nichtigkeitswiderklage |
|
|
13/09/2024 |
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. EPO |
UPC_CFI_427/2024 |
App_42538/2024 |
ORD_51358/2024 |
Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP88) |
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat |
English |
|
The Application pursuant to R. 88 RoP has been processed by the Court and forwarded for interlocutory revision to the EPO, the Office has rectified the contested decision in accordance with the request and the submission of the Claimant doesn’t mention any particular circumstance justifying a decision of reimbursement. The case shall be closed without prior consultation of the parties. |
Application pursuant to R. 88 RoP |
|
|
09/09/2024 |
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Shenzen Yunding Information Technology |
UPC_CFI_516/2024 |
ACT_50855/2024 |
ORD_50890/2024 |
|
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
The necessity of taking interim measures after issuing a cease-and-desist declaration and exhibiting at an international trade fair |
|
|
09/09/2024 |
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH |
UPC_CFI_9/2024 |
ACT_459771/2023 |
ORD_50813/2024 |
Generic order |
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
09/09/2024 |
Panasonic v. Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo Gmbh |
UPC_CFI_219/2023 |
App_45837/2024 |
ORD_47201/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
09/09/2024 |
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. |
UPC_CFI_88/2024 |
App_28467/2024 |
ORD_28786/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
09/09/2024 |
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v. 1) Stephen George Edrich 2) Belkin GmbH 3) Belkin International, Inc 4) Belkin Limited 5) Marc Gary Cooper 6) Paul John McKenna |
UPC_CFI_5/2023 |
App_50655/2024 |
ORD_50820/2024 |
|
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
06/09/2024 |
Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. |
UPC_CFI_165/2024 |
ACT_18492/2024 |
ORD_50564/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be interpreted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has already set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action. The preparations for it have been fully completed. These circumstances must be assessed on a case by case basis. 3. Companies that are members of a group and play a key role in a distribution network for the infringing product – such as a sole manufacturer or a European sales and marketing hub – may also be considered as infringers if they are located outside the Contracting Member States but supply their products to other members of the group located in the Contracting Member States, while these companies distribute these products on the European market, including at least one Contracting Member State where the patent in suit is valid. 4. Rule R. 295 RoP (stay of proceedings) refers to actions and is therefore not applicable to applications for provisional measures. 5. The interpretation of the patent is not only mandatory for the Court, but also for the parties, who must submit their views on their proposed interpretation in their briefs. 6. It is the task of the parties to present technical arguments to the Court in a concentrated and comprehensible form. In particular, the technical argumentation must be focused and precise for the Court in order to be able to comply with the ambitious time limits set by the law. This is even more true in PI proceedings. |
Lis pendens, imminent infringement, provisional measures, claim interpretation |
|
|
06/09/2024 |
Meril v. Edwards |
UPC_CoA_458/2024 |
App_45044/2024 |
ORD_48422/2024 |
Generic application |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
06/09/2024 |
Motorola Mobility LLC v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson GmbH |
UPC_CoA_489/2024 |
APL_47300/2024 |
ORD_48358/2024 |
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3) |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
06/09/2024 |
Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc. v. Celltrion Inc. |
UPC_CFI_166/2024 |
ACT_18551/2024 |
ORD_50565/2024 |
Application for provisional measures |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be interpreted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has already set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action. The preparations for it have been fully completed. These circumstances must be assessed on a case by case basis. 3. Companies that are members of a group and play a key role in a distribution network for the infringing product – such as a sole manufacturer or a European sales and marketing hub – may also be considered as infringers if they are located outside the Contracting Member States but supply their products to other members of the group located in the Contracting Member States, while these companies distribute these products on the European market, including at least one Contracting Member State where the patent in suit is valid. 4. Rule R. 295 RoP (stay of proceedings) refers to actions and is therefore not applicable to applications for provisional measures. 5. The interpretation of the patent is not only mandatory for the Court, but also for the parties, who must submit their views on their proposed interpretation in their briefs. 6. It is the task of the parties to present technical arguments to the Court in a concentrated and comprehensible form. In particular, the technical argumentation must be focused and precise for the Court in order to be able to comply with the ambitious time limits set by the law. This is even more true in PI proceedings. |
claim interpretation, provisional measures, Lis pendens, imminent infringement |
|
|
06/09/2024 |
SodaStream Industries v. Aarke AB |
UPC_CFI_373/2023 |
App_47922/2024 |
ORD_48181/2024 |
Application Rop 333 |
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
English |
|
|
|
|
|
05/09/2024 |
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. |
UPC_CoA_207/2024 |
APL_24598/2024 |
ORD_42779/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
|
05/09/2024 |
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. |
UPC_CoA_106/2024 |
APL_12739/2024 |
ORD_42780/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
1. Eine Verbindung wegen Zusammenhangs gemäß R. 340 VerfO kann nicht dazu führen, dass eine Klage an eine andere Kammer des Gerichts erster Instanz außerhalb der Möglichkeiten der Verweisung von Klagen gemäß Art. 33 EPGÜ verwiesen wird. 2. Art. 33 EPGÜ lässt die Verweisung einer Verletzungsklage von einer Lokalkammer an die Zentralkammer ohne Zustimmung der Parteien nicht zu. |
Verweisung einer Verletzungsklage, Verbindung wegen Zusammenhangs, Berufung |
|
|
03/09/2024 |
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v. DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C |
UPC_CoA_188/2024 |
APL_21943/2024 |
ORD_42716/2024 |
Appeal RoP220.2 |
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) |
German |
|
|
|
|
DE
EN