Institutions: Paris Central Division
- Brussels Local Division
- Central Division
- Duesseldorf Local Division
- Hamburg Local Division
- Helsinki Local Division
- Lisbon Local Division
- Local Division
- Luxembourg Court of Appeal
- Mannheim Local Division
- Milan Central Division
- Milan Local Division
- Munich Central Division
- Munich Local Division
- Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
- Paris Central Division
- Paris Local Division
- President of Court of First Instance
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
CD Paris, July 2, 2024, order on CMS workflows in revocation action, UPC_CFI_484/2023
Whenever certain workflows are provided, parties shall use the correct workflows for lodging documents. : If there is a separate workflow for the Application to amend the patent, the party should use this workflow instead of filing the Application in the same submission as the Statement of Defense. This makes the CMS more transparent and…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, June 26, 2024, order, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Independence of a counsellor is measured with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party : The fact that the representative of a party is also the inventor of the patent-in-suit, the original applicant of the application underlying the patent-in-suit and the managing director of the first assignee of the patent does…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CD Paris, Preliminary objection of a revocation action, May 2, 2024, UPC_CFI-484/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction for the central revocation action even if a prior national revocation action is pending: The asserted patent is only validated in Germany. In 2021, Nokia Solutions and Networks GmbH & Co. KG filed a national revocation action with the German Federal Patent Court (GFPC) against the proprietor (Mala Technologies), which was…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, May 10, 2024, request for simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CFI_367_2023
As long as some of the party’s representatives speak/understand the language of the proceedings, there is no reason for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing pursuant to R. 109 (1), (2) sentence 1 RoP, whereby the costs arising from the simultaneous interpretation are procedural costs: It does not matter what language skills a specific representative…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, May 10, 2024, Order re Preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_589997/2023
The violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court: Lack of jurisdiction can occur when a different court or a different body (as an arbitration board) which is part of a different judicial system have the power to address the dispute (‘relative’ lack of jurisdiction)…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, April 25, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI-361/2023
Key Takeaways Neither a Preliminary Objection nor the likelihood of an appeal against its rejection are relevant factors for the stay of the proceedings : Neither the fact that a Preliminary Objection has been lodged nor the likelihood of success of the appeal against the rejection of the Preliminary Objection are relevantfactors for deciding whether…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, February 27, 2024, late-filed amendments to the patent (rejected), UPC_CFI_255-2023CD
Alignment of defenses in different proceedings: In a case in which the patent proprietor applied to amend the patent in due time (that is, within the time period for lodging the defence to revocation) and then requested a change of this original application within his next deadline (rejoinder to the reply to the defence and…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 27 February 2024, order on request to amend the patent, UPC_CFI_255/2023
Request to further “amend the case” or “amend the patent” by defendant in revocation action due to invalidity attacks brought in the parallel counterclaim for revocation was rejected: Defendant in revocation action applied to amend the patent in due time, i.e, within the time period for lodging the defence to revocation. It then requested a…
6 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 20 February 2024, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_454/2023
Strict requirements for extensions of deadlines: The Court may extend a deadline set by the Rules of Procedures only in case a party alleges and gives evidence that it will not be able or was not able to meet it because of a fact that makes the submission of a document or the arrangement of…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, February 9, 2024, rejected request for time extension, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Time extension only in exceptional cases: The power to extend a time limit should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases (see UPC CFI 363/2023 LD Düsseldorf, order of 20 January 2024). A deadline set by the Rules of Procedures may only be extended in case a party alleges and gives…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 22 January 2024, order, UPC_CFI_308/2023
Background of the case: The applicant filed a revocation action against the patent at issue. On 27 November 2023, the respondent submitted a defence to revocation which was considered by as incomplete the Registry. Consequently, on 11 December 2023, the respondent requested to correct the detected deficiencies, by logding a corrected statement of defence which…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 13 November 2023, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_255/2023
Scope of Article 33 (4) UPCA: same parties: Art. 33(4) UPCA concerns, inter alia, the jurisdiction for revocation actions. If an action for infringement between the “same parties” relating to the same patent has been brought before a local or a regional division, revocation actions may only be brought before the same local or regional…
7 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.