Institutions: Duesseldorf 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
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
LD Düsseldorf, December 3, 2024, Order re. procedural security against Defendant, UPC_CFI_140/2024
1. Not only the claimant but also the defendant may be ordered to provide security for legal costs within the meaning of R. 158 RoP.: (pp. 5 et seq.) Contrary to the Defendant´s position, this does not mean that Rule 158 RoP is in conflict with the UPCA. The power to order the provision of…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 29, 2024, request for simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Discretionary interpretation: The UPC retains discretion in granting simultaneous interpretation, even when a party requests it. Rules 109.1 and 109.2(1) RoP highlight the Judge-Rapporteur’s authority to decide whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate. If the Judge-Rapporteur refuses the request for simultaneous interpretation, a party may, at its own expense, engage a simultaneous…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, November 29, 2024, procedural order rejecting submission, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Absent a reasoned request, and consequently a decision allowing further submissions, the Court will rejcect any submissions made after the stipulated periods.: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, on a reasoned request by a party, allow further written submissions to be exchanged within a period to be specified.In the case at hand, the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 20, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_347/2024 and UPC_CFI_368/2024
“Obvious slips” within the meaning of R. 353 RoP, which allow the Court to rectify a decision or order, are all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court actually intended in the order or decision. In other words, the declaration of the Court’s intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 21, 2024, Order on joint hearing of both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_499/2023
Joint hearing of both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation: The local division exercises its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of efficiency. It is also preferable…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 20, 2024, Request for Extension of Time Limits, UPC_CFI_499/2023
Fairness and Equity regarding Extension of Time Limits: Defendants have not consented to the extension of the time limits. However, the requested extension is justified on the grounds of fairness and equity (see the 5th recital in the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure), since the previous time limit was, with the consent of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, October 30, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_355/2023
R. 36 RoP: Filing of Pleadings Beyond Time Limits Specified in RoP Possible: 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…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, October 31, 2024, Decision, UPC_CFI_373/2023
Preferred Embodiments Not Limiting for Claims: 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…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, October 31, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_368/024
No uniform urgency period.: The urgency period is to be measured from the date on which the applicant is or should have been aware of the infringement. Whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There is no fixed deadline by which the applicant must submit its application for provisional…
7 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, panel review order re. security for costs, UPC_CFI_373/2023, ORD_48181/2024
Confirmation of legal standard: it is a discretionary decision to order a security for legal costs and other expenses; imposing of a security serves to protect the position and (potential) rights of the Defendant : Factors to be considered (following CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2024; CD Munich, UPC_CFI_252/2023; LD Paris, UPC_495/2023): financial position of the other party that…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_165/2024 and UPC_CFI_166/2024
Existence of infringement is assessed on the basis of UPC law without recourse to national patent law: Art. 25 UPCA (right to prevent the direct use of the invention) constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA (provisional and protective measures) uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws so that these…
11 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, September 2, 2024, request to allocate another technically qualified judge, UPC_CFI_368/2024
No opportunity for parties to make suggestions on (technical) background of one of the judges allocated to the panel: Defendant’s application for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge in order to allocate another technically qualified judge with experience in the field of mechanical engineering is dismissed. The technically qualified judge is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, August 30, 2024, order on protection of confidential information, UPC_CFI_99/2024
Information on the profit margin may be subject to confidentiality if it is not available from publicly accessible sources: The Claimant has not questioned the fact that information on the profit margin may constitute confidential information if it is not available from publicly accessible sources. Insofar as the Claimant instead refers to the fact that…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesselorf, August 8, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_140/2024
No reason to limit access for authorised representative’s team: Normally, in main proceedings there is no reason to limit the party’s representatives who have access to confidential information to a certain number of team members or even to UPC representatives and their internal assistants. To fullfill the requirement of R. 262A.6 RoP (number of persons…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, July 30, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Intervener is party to the proceedings with corresponding option to request confidentiality: Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, the intervener shall be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315.4 RoP. Just like a party, the intervener therefore has the option to file a confidentiality request concerning the information contained in the pleadings submitted…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, August 2, 2024, Procedural order concerning Application to Amend, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Admissibility of (later) applications for amendments: If auxiliary requests filed in the context of an application for amendment of the patent are to be amended later, the scope of R. 263 RoP is not open from the outset. The conditions under which applications for amendment of the patent are admissible are laid down in R.…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, August 5, 2024, subsequent request to amend patent, UPC_CFI_363_2023
Rule 30.2 RoP leaves open the time of a decision on the admission of a subsequent request for amendment of the patent: The time of the decision is at the discretion of the court. The judge-rapporteur may postpone such a decision. A rejecting order is not required. As long as the subsequent request for amendment…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.