Institutions: Duesseldorf Local 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
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
LD Duesseldorf, July 22, 2024, Order on a request for confidentiality, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Generally, a confidentiality club shall include at least one natural person from an intervening party: Since the intervener shall be treated as a party in accordance with R. 315.4 RoP (unless otherwise ordered by the Court), on request according to R. 262A a confidentiality club shall comprise at least one natural person from the intervener.…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 3, 2024, judgment on prior use right, award of damages and order to communicate information / lay open books, UPC_CFI_7/2023
Within the framework of Art. 28 UPCA, the user of the claimed technology can only invoke the rights granted to him by the respective national regulations of the respective contracting member states. On this basis, the existence of a right based on prior use of the invention must be substantiated for each of the protected…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 20, 2024, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023
Order to jointly hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA for reasons of efficiency: Pursuant to Art. 33(3) UPCA, the LD can exercise its discretion when deciding to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) or to refer the counterclaim for…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 27, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Deadline Extensions due to R. 242A RoP applications in FRAND proceedings: If the Defendant deals extensively with license negotiations between itself and a patent pool in the context of the substantiation of the FRAND objection raised by it, the Claimant can only respond comprehensively to this argument if he can consult with employees of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 26, 2024, procedual order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Direct and present interest of the Intervener: The legal interest required for the admissibility of the intervention is given if the Intervener has a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the assisted party. Such a legal interest can be affirmed if the patent in suit has been…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 24, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_456/2023
If access to written pleadings is restricted to representatives only according to R. 262A RoP, this is regularly a reason for the extension of time limits: R. 9.3 (a) RoP authorizes the court to extend time limits. However, this option should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. Such an exceptional…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, May 30, 2024, order pursuant R. 323 RoP, UPC_CFI_26/2024
In infringement proceedings, the position of the defendant requesting the language of the proceedings to be changed into the language of the patent is decisive, if in the overall assessment the result of the balancing of interest is the same: Art. 49.5 UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that the decision on whether…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.