Change of claim to include Romania allowed (R. 263 RoP). The two extensions of the action shall be allowed because both parties have requested that the question of infringement and validity concerning Romania also be heard and decided. Amendment of claim to include process claim allowed: does not constitute a change of...

Revocation EP 740 dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). No alleged lack of inventive step. The validity of the independent claim 1 justifies validity of the dependent claims 2 – 6. Admissible late filed documents in the Reply to defence to revocation (R. 44 RoP). It must be concluded that the documents introduced by the...

Rule 13.1(q) RoP (request that document need not be translated in Statement of claim) applies mutatis mutandis for other submissions, although not explicitly for a Statement of response in appeal proceedings. (R. 236 RoP). A party in appeal proceedings will only be relieved from the duty to provide translations of...

EP 282 revoked (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA). Inadmissible new added matter ground for revocation raised in Rejoinder to the reply to the Statement of Defence inadmissible (R. 9.2 RoP). Order by the judge-rapporteur allowing further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) relates to adding some arguments to the...

No justification to reopen the debate after the oral hearing because of decision of Munich Regional Court of 11 November 2024 (R. 334 and 336 RoP). This request made at a very late stage of the proceedings is not justified, since the decision in question does not concern the patent at issue in the present case, but its...

Ex parte order to preserve evidence (R. 197 RoP, Article 60(5) UPCA). Demonstrable risk of evidence being no more available once the SMT exhibition is over, for Doytec is based abroad and the technical and commercial documentation relating to C-1012 machine could easily be destroyed or otherwise ceasing to be available...

Are you passionate about IP? We have exciting news for you! The IPKat is seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI) for GuestKat posts and looking for IP enthusiasts to fill InternKat positions. GuestKat and InternKat positions are six months (with the possibility of extension), and there are no geographical restrictions on...

Since the start of operations on 1 June 2023, the Court has received a total of 635 cases. For further details on how this figure is divided into categories of cases, their respective handling divisions, and the predominant languages used in proceedings, please refer to the attached PDF.

Application to the standing judge for suspensive effect of an appeal because of extreme urgency (R. 223.4 RoP) rejected regarding an order to the defendant to provide € 200.000 security for legal costs of the claimant (R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA). Within the discretion of the standing judge to dismiss the application...

IPPT20241203, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Defendant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Claimant in an amount of EUR 200,000. Defendant can also be ordered to provide security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). There is no conflict between Rule 158 RoP, i...

A unconditional limitation of the damages claimed shall be regarded as an unconditional limitation of the claim  (R 263.3 RoP). The determination of the value of the action (at the time of filing the action) will be the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur during the interim procedure (R 22, 104 and 370.6 RoP)

Application for confidentiality of “Confidential Global Licence & Art 79 UPCA Settlement offer to Microsoft” granted under R. 262 RoP (to the public) instead of R. 262A RoP (intra parties). This document, in its original version, is obviously known by Suinno and its representative and, as a result, does not require a...

Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). A linguistic error, a spelling mistake or any other inaccuracy in a patent claim can only be corrected by way of interpretation of the patent claim if the existence of an error and the precise way to correct it are sufficiently certain to the average skilled person on the basis of...

The SPC regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for a product consisting of two active ingredients even if one of those two active ingredients has already been, alone, the subject of an earlier SPC and it is the only one to have been disclosed by the...

No stay of proceedings (oral hearing at 16 January 2024) because of rapidly expected decision of EPO Opposition Division (17 January 2024) (Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a) RoP).It can be expected that the outcome of the opposition proceedings will be available before this Court issues its decision on the merits (even if...

New legal arguments may be submitted in appeal. The discretion of the Court of Appeal to disregard new “requests, facts and evidence”  does not apply to legal arguments (R. 222.2 RoP). Stays on the ground of parallel EPO opposition proceedings are governed by the more specific provisions of Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a)...

Suspension of provisional injunction to cover PI carveout for BMW supplies. The effect of the impugned order suspended insofar as the injunction covers the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé car model (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). From the Statements lodged by Magna it was therefore already clear that there were six car models...

As a general rule revocation in appeal affects penalty payments. Revocation in appeal of a first instance provisional injunction has, as a general rule, retroactive effect (Article 75(1) UPCA, R. 242.1 RoP, Article 3 Enforcement Directive). The order is revoked because it has been established by a final judgment of the...

Application for provisional measure rejected (R. 211 RoP). Doubts regarding patent validity appear to be preventing the issuance of the requested order. To encapsulate, the subject matter of claim 1 of ‘327 is unlikely to be considered novel in light of the prior art disclosed in US’994, as the fluid delivery device...

The Claimant may, at its own expense, engage an interpreter (into Japanese) who may, if necessary, use the equipment available in the courtroom for simultaneous interpretation. (Article 51 UPCA, R. 109 RoP, R. 150 RoP).