Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Munich Local Division » LD Munich, February 12, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_714/2024

LD Munich, February 12, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_714/2024

Anita Peter

2 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Jurisdictions
  8. Body of legislation / Rules

Key takeaways

LD Munich competent to hear an infringement action, although appeal before the Court of Appeal is pending between the same parties regarding an action for provisional measures based on the same patent that was filed in first instance with the LD Düsseldorf

✓

A case is not “pending before a division of the Court of First Instance” pursuant to Art. 33(2) UPCA, if it is pending in the appeal instance. It is pending before the Court of Appeal if the appeal was filed there.

Division

LD Munich

UPC number

UPC_CFI_714/2024, App_67626/2024, ORD_68717/2024

Type of proceedings

Preliminary objection

Parties

Claimant: biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: 1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International

Patent(s)

EP 3 685 783

Jurisdictions

Place jurisdictions

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 33(2) UPCA

LD Munich_biolitec v SIA Lightguide_2025_02_12Download

Was the article helpful?

1

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, March 11, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_201/2024

    Timely lodging of statement of claim upon order of provisional measures: payment of court fees relevant (not timing of receipt): The applicant of provisional measures has to “start proceedings on the merits” of the case within 31 calendar days (or 20 working days, whichever is longer) from the date specified in the Court’s order (R. …
    →
  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_483/2024

    Amendment of case (Rule 263 RoP): The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Reasonable Diligence Requirement (Rule 263.2(a) RoP) : The claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable …
    →
  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, February 24, 2025, decision regarding award of costs, UPC_CFI_2/2023

    In PI-proceedings an application for the determination of costs pursuant to R. 151 RoP is admissible in the event that the Court of Appeal has issued a basic decision on costs pursuant to R. 242.1RoP.: Pursuant to R. 150.1 RoP, the determination of costs may be the subject of separate proceedings following a decision on …
    →

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field