Action closed after rectification by the EPO of contested decision in accordance with request (Rule 88 and 91 RoP). The submission of the Claimant doesn’t mention any particular circumstances justifying a decision of reimbursement.

Protected confidential information – trade secrets (Article 9 Trade secret directive, Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP). Information on profit margin can be classified as confidential if it is not available from publicly accessible sources.Information about the few employees having access to this financial information...

Preliminary injunction for indirect infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). Sufficient degree of certainty for provisional measures regarding indirect infringement, not regarding direct infringement (Article 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211(2) RoP, Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA)). Urgency (Rule 209(2)(b) RoP, Rule 211(3)...

Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Interpretation of feature  ‘in at least one of ...’. All of the elements listed in feature 1.1.2 in conjunction with the other features 1.2.2 and 1.3.2 are necessarily and therefore cumulatively claimed. Lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC). The subject-matter of claims 1 and 7 and...

The infringement action is unfounded. The counterclaim for revocation is partially justified. Rebuttable presumption of entitlement to European patent (Rule 8.5 RoP). The entry in the patent register has a significant indicative effect when assessing the question of who is the substantive owner of the patent. The...

Adequate security for legal costs and other expenses equally available in appeal (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP, Rule 222(2) RoP). Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal costs in appeal in the (total) amount of € 25.000.  The provision of security for costs does not hamper access to justice. (Article 47...

Leave for an unconditional limitation of the scope of the initial claim (Rule 263(3) RoP). Defendant Arvato should no longer be considered to be infringing according to Art. 25(a) UPCA, but regarded as an intermediary according to Art. 62(1) UPCA, whose services are used by the other Defendants to infringe the Patent.

Change of language from German to English (the language of the patent) granted (Article 49 UPCA). English language application to change the language of the proceedings from German to English declared admissible (Rule 7.1 RoP, Rule 14.4 RoP, Rule 323 RoP). According to R. 7.1 RoP, it is within the Court’s discretion to...

After a little more than 1 year since the inception of the Unified Patent Court, more than 300 UPC orders and decisions have been published on IP-Portal  with summaries and hyperlinks in the IPPT-pdf-format and listed under the relevant articles of the UPC Agreement and rules of the Rules of Procedure

 

Applicant granted access to the written pleadings and evidence (Rule 262 RoP). One proceedings have come to an end the integrity of proceedings is no longer at stake and the balance of interests will normally be in favour of granting access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, subject to the...

Certain information classified as confidential for confidentiality club (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secrets Directive). The fact that precisely the information now classified as confidential by the Defendants was publicly discussed in the Stuttgart proceedings has not been sufficiently demonstrated...

Application for discretionary review of confidentiality club order with no leave to appeal dismissed (Rule 220(3) RoP, Rule 262A RoP). No reasons set out that would justify allowing appeal against the order of the Local Division Mannheim of 22 July 2024, which is based on the principle that the abstract risk that an in...

Request for discretionary review in the absence of leave to appeal (Rule 220(4) RoP). Parties cannot take procedural steps of their own motion (Rule 9(1) RoP; Rule 36 RoP). It follows from Rule 36 RoP that a reasoned request and authorisation by the judge is required. The written submissions provided for in R.220.4 of...

Inadmissible request for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of an order rejecting – without leave to appeal – the ‘R.361 RoP request’ to declare the revocation action manifestly inadmissible (Rule 361 RoP). Leave to appeal as provided for in Rule 220.2 RoP required because the provision of Rule 363(2) RoP that...

Generally unjustified to stay revocation proceedings because of appeal against the denial of provisional measures (Rule 295(m) RoP). If the lodging of an appeal would suffice for a stay of proceedings, a party lodging an appeal against a decision rejecting provisional measures would have it in its hands to influence...

Reply to Statement of response not taken into account. Further written pleadings may only be filed after a Rule 36 RoP request, filed before the closing of the interim procedure, has been granted (Rule 239 RoP). In appeal there is no provision for notification in accordance with Rule 35a RoP.

All parts of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defence of HP, except point 3 and related exhibits, excluded as inadmissible: not limited to a response to the matters raised in the Reply to the Statement of defence (Rule 29(c) RoP). If HPDC considered that new arguments on the infringement claim justified...

Application for security for legal costs dismissed (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). No indication that the Claimant would lack assets or will to pay costs of the proceedings and other costs incurred (or to be incurred) by Defendants, which the Claimant may have to bear. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that a...

No stay of proceedings because a final decision in EPO opposition cannot be expected rapidly; notice of opposition filed on 7 March 2024 (Article 33(10) UPCA, Rule 295(a) RoP). Stay of proceedings because of pending EPO opposition is during the written procedure governed by Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP ...

Manifestly erroneous that Ireland is a Contracting Member State of the UPC (Article 84.2 UPCA) and  thus cannot be considered to be covered by Abbott’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Court of First Instance therefore awarded more than was requested for, which is contrary to Art. 76 UPCA. Suspensive effect...