Institutions: Local Division
-
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 Milan, November 4, 2024, decision, UPC_CFI_241/2023
No stay of proceedings due to parallel counterclaim for revocation: There is no basis for a stay (R. 295(m) RoP) of an infringement action, where the defendant has acknowledged the validity of the patent and infringement without exception, for the purpose of awaiting the Court’s decision on the counterclaim for revocation introduced in a parallel…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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 Mannheim, October 20, 2024, request for production of evidence, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Request for production of evidence, Art. 49 UCA, R. 190 RoP, must be based on specific facts: As a general rule, an order to produce evidence (e.g. source codes) presupposes that a fact is relevant to substantiate claims or objections. For this purpose, the applicant must state in detail which specific fact he wishes to…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, October 20, 2024, order on request for information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Key Takeaways Two alternatives for requests for information: The Court may order that information which is in the possession of the other or a third party is communicated. Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure provides for two alternatives for respective requests for information. The purpose of the first alternative of Rule 191 RoP is…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 11, 2024, cost decision, UPC_CFI_292/2023
No retroactive extension of time period for requesting costs under R. 151 RoP: The Court held that Rule 320 RoP, concerning the restitution of rights, is the lex specialis (more specific rule) and takes precedence over the general provision of Rule 9.3(a) RoP when a party misses a deadline and seeks to restore its right to…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, October 15, 2024, order dismissing PI based on patent infringement, UPC_CFI_317/2024
Challenging territorial competence requires more than denying infringement: The court held that simply denying infringement does not constitute a valid challenge to territorial competence under Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA. Defendants must directly address and refute the “territorial connection element” to successfully contest jurisdiction. The court emphasized the distinction between a jurisdictional challenge and a…
4 min Reading time→ -
Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/06/2024
Determining the scope of protection based on the patent claim: The patent claim is always to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art. The skilled person takes into account the purpose of every patent claim to provide them with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 2, 2024, Substantive Order, UPC_CFI_153/2024
Patent pool administrators have a direct legal interest in litigations concerning patents within their pools: The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit. This interest stems from…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 2, Procedural Order on Security for Costs UPC_CFI_54/2024
US-based NPE has to provide security: The Claimant is a non-practicing entity with no operational business. Its business model appears to be based solely on revenues expected from patent litigation. The Claimant owns no other assets other than the patents used in multiple worldwide litigations and it has failed to substantially challenge these reasons and…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 25, 2024, Procedural Order on a Counterclaim for revocation – Standing to be sued, UPC_CFI_114/2024 UPC_CFI_448/2024
Background: A common situation in patent litigation is that a patent has (allegedly) been assigned from one legal entity (assignor) to another (assignee) and that the assignee asserts the patent before being entered as proprietor into the register. This decision addresses the question who the alleged infringer (defendant) can sue in a counterclaim for revocation.…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, September 17, 2024, Procedural Order on a Counter Claim for revocation – amendment of counter claim, ACT_586899/2023
Amendments to counterclaims are permissible even after the initial pleadings have been filed: The court emphasized that it will grant leave to amend when the amendment could not have been reasonably submitted earlier, such as when the opposing party makes an unexpected procedural move. This approach ensures fairness and allows the real issues in dispute…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, September 17, 2024, order on application pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CFI_151/2024
Application to get access to written pleadings and evidence granted (R. 262.1(b) RoP), but limited to redacted versions (R. 262.2 RoP): The access to the written pleadings and evidence is conditioned to a reasoned request, R. 262.1(b) RoP. Gaining a better understanding of one of the first UPC decisions regarding an application for provisional measures…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 13, 2024, infringement action: decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_390/2023
No stay of the proceedings due to national nullity proceedings re. German part of patent-in-suit: Requirements of R. 295(a) RoP not fulfilled, appeal of the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) against the first instance decision of the German Federal Patent Court (FPC) is not expected to be given rapidly. A stay according to R.…
11 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_210/2023
Late request to hear expert of one party as witness in oral hearing: Court dismissed Claimant’s request – raised after the interim conference – to hear an expert appointed by Claimant as witness in the oral hearing on several grounds: (1) Firstly, as a general rule, further pleadings and requests cannot be filed after the…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.