Provisional injunction lifted (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). Not more likely than not that the patent is infringed. it is not more likely than not that the contested embodiments realise feature 1.3 of claim 1. No need to examine the other grounds brought forward by the parties, given the assessment in relation to...

IPPT20241113, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama
Claim construction in language of the patent (Article 69 EPC). Appropriate in French language proceedings to examine all arguments raised in relation to the interpretation of the patent with reference to the patent application as filed in English. Novelty (article 54 EPC). To...

Patent infringement uncontested. No basis for staying the action for infringement because of pending revocation proceedings, where the defendant has not contested the validity of the patent nor the infringement (R. 295 RoP, R. 171(2) RoP). Permanent injunction granted to prohibit repetition and prohibit future conduct ...

Ballinno ordered to provide security for legal cost of claimant  Kinexon in revocation action (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). It is not necessary that the party claiming security has the formal position of a defendant in the lawsuit in which it claims security. It only matters whether it reacts to a claim of the...

Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). Parallel jurisdiction during the transitional period also includes actions for a declaration of non-infringement, although such actions are not explicitly mentioned in Article 83.1 UPCA. An action for a declaration of non-infringement is, after all, the mirror of an action...

Application to file a reply to the Statement of  response rejected (R. 36 RoP, R. 222.2(a) RoP). The fact that Hand Held Products defended the court's interpretation in the response to the appeal with reference to paragraph [0063] does not justify allowing the filing of a reply. Scandit has not substantiated why Hand...

Request rejected to allow further written submissions regarding new product version (‘Barryvox S’) (R. 36 RoP). Time available until the date of the oral hearing (26 November 2024) clearly insufficient for (i) further legal classification and treatment thereof, as well as (ii) a reasonable period of time for the...

Further written pleading rejected (R. 36 RoP). Would lead to a delay in the proceedings. In view of the oral hearing, which is already scheduled for December, such a delay would be unacceptable to both the Court and the Defendants. The Claimant’s right to be heard is not unduly restricted by the rejection. New factual...

A reasoned request for information under R. 191 RoP must sufficiently specify which information is requested and for what reasons. The requesting party may assert a fact that it believes to be true without fear of being accused of failing to furnish the court with truthful facts simply because the opposing party...

No reimbursement of court fees following interlocutory rectification by EPO of contested decision after Court order that there was no reason for full or partial reimbursement of the fee for the action (R. 370 RoP, R. 91 RoP, R. 333 RoP, R. 220 RoP). Even if it is foreseen by R. 370.11 RoP that an application may also...

Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Skilled person will not stop at the literal meaning of a feature but will determine the meaning of the word ”flask“ in the context of the patent claim as a whole. In doing so, the skilled person will turn to the technical function of the flask given by the individual feature and in...

Costs for the appeal instance rejected due to failure to comply with the time limit. (R. 151 RoP, R. 320 RoP, R. 9(3) RoP). Re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, as a lex specialis, takes precedence over Rule 9.3 (a) RoP.

Patent revoked in its entirety. Court to examine its international jurisdiction of its own motion. The parties are not the same for the purposes of Articles 29  and 31 Brussels I recast Regulation. The fact that both parties belong to the same group of companies and have the same parent company is insufficient to...

Application for provisional measures dismissed (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). The allegation that no acts of infringement at all were committed is irrelevant in the assessment of territorial competence (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA) because it does not challenge the territorial connection to the Local or Regional Division. It...

Valid priority (Article 87 EPC). Requirement of ‘same invention’ in Article 87 EPC is met if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim of an invention directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole (the so-called ‘gold standard’). No added matter...

Provisional injunction: imminent danger that the Applicant's right will be infringed by the contested embodiment in the Contracting States, in particular in Germany and Bulgaria (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP). It is at least more likely than not that the contested embodiment, the 2023 version of KAGURA, makes literal...

New submission disregarded; lack of relevance for the decision on the appeal (R. 222(2) RoP). Contrary to SharkNinja's view, submissions by the parties in other proceedings that contradict the submissions in the present proceedings do not mean that the submissions in the present proceedings must be regarded as...

Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” (R. 263 RoP). An amendment of the case in the sense of R. 263 RoP only occurs when the nature and scope of the dispute changes such as through the introduction of a new patent or objection to a new product. A new basis for infringement (such as equivalence)...

Leave to appeal under R. 220.2 RoP must be expressly granted by the Court of First Instance and cannot be presumed. The phrase that the order "is subject to appeal under the conditions laid down by the provisions of R. 220.2 RoP" is for information purposes only and not a grant of leave to appeal (Article 73(2) UPCA).