CFI decision set aside: provisional measures granted. Invalidity defence in proceedings for provisional measures does not require a counterclaim for revocation and is not a separate action (R. 25.1 RoP, R. 205 RoP). Similarly, a waiver of an invalidity defence in proceedings for provisional measures is not an...

Ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction granted prohibiting the defendants from pursuing a Chinese “interim licence” (Article 32 UPCA, Article 56 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Article 7 Brussels I). The Court has jurisdiction and competence. The place where the threatened infringement of the applicants’ patent rights is to occur...

Leave to appeal a cost decision granted (R. 221.3 RoP). Decision should have been issued after Guardant had access to the unredacted version of the application and exhibit SG106, and had the opportunity to comment on them. Request to join the appeal with the pending appeal on the merits refused (R. 340 RoP). The...

Request for suspensive effect of security of costs order rejected for lack of exceptional circumstances. (Article 74 UPCA, Article 69 (4) UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 158 RoP). The applicant did not demonstrate: Manifest error in the decision,Irreversible harm or Violation of fundamental procedural rights.

Offline streaming copy does not fall under private copying exception of article 5(2)(b) Directive 2001/29/EC (‘InfoSoc Directive’): Offline streaming functionality must be regarded as communication of a work to the public within the meaning of article 3(1) InfoSoc Directive. Offline streaming copy cannot be classified...

Request for simultaneous interpretation from French to English and vice versa denied. Hearing to be held in English. (Rule 109.2 RoP) Procedural rules must be applied in a flexible and balanced manner, with the requisite degree of discretion. An official representative of the Respondents not having command of the...

Jurisdiction and competence of the court. (Article 33 UPCA). CD Paris lacks jurisdiction to hear the infringement action against defendants not named in the previous order. (Article 33 (1) UPCA). Although the order was issued without hearing two companies, it took into account the situation corresponding to multiple...

Request for suspensive effect rejected due to lack of exceptional circumstances (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 223.1 RoP). Appellant has not argued that the decision is manifestly flawed, or that the decision is based on a breach of a fundamental procedural right. In the application for suspensive effect, appellant does not...

Patent valid and infringed (Article 65 UPCA , Article 25(a) UPCA , Article 26 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted for recall and destruction of goods. (Article 63(1) UPCA) the defendant markets and uses the invention of the patent. Advertising materials are excluded from destruction (Article 64 (2)(e) UPCA) because...

Preliminary injunction granted in appeal (R. 211 RoP, R. 242 RoP). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim 1 only requires that the monitored glucose levels and the event data icons are included in the same timeline graph. The claim does not require both to be in the same area of the graph or within a certain range...

Jurisdiction (Article 31 UPCA). By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Appellant (Defendant in first instance) has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and competence as a ground for overturning the impugned...

A party or its representative may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing, based on an audio recording pursuant  R. 115 RoP. When producing a private transcript, a party or its representative may obtain support of an assistant or support staff, such as a stenographer, working in the presence and under the...

Appeal dismissed of rejection of provisional measures (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP, R. 211 RoP). Admissibility of auxiliary requests in provisional measures proceedings (R. 30 RoP, R. 222 RoP). Asserting a patent in an amended (non-granted) form is not automatically inadmissible and depends on the circumstances of the...

The principle that parties shall set out their full case as early as possible in the proceedings (RoP, Preamble, paragraph 7, last sentence) also applies to applications for suspensive effect. This means that an application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence and arguments on which the...

The Court of First Instance has case management discretion to either decide on the Preliminary objection as soon as practicable or decide to deal with the Preliminary objection in the main proceedings (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP, R. 102.1 RoP, R. 331.1 RoP). The decision to deal with the Preliminary objection in the main...

IPPT.eu is pleased to announce that Meissner Bolte has joined the platform as a Multi User Sponsor. The sponsorship supports IPPT.eu’s mission to publish European intellectual property case law and legal texts in a structured, searchable and practitioner-friendly format.

Infringement order in respect of all Contracting States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA). For an order to be issued in respect of all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force, it is sufficient to determine an infringing act in one Contracting Member State. This applies even if an infringing act can...

Trade secrets or other confidential information ae no longer trade secrets or other confidential information if they are disclosed to the other party without an order pursuant to R. 262A RoP, or without any other restriction, for example an agreement between the parties or a voluntary undertaking. A request under R...

Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings do not constitute interpretative material for the interpretation of the granted patent within the meaning of Article 69(1) EPC. Nor are such statements by the applicant during the grant proceedings binding for the...

Dismissal of revocation action (Article 65 |UPCA) and of infringement action (Article 25 UPCA). Jurisdiction of the UPC in infringement action regarding all defendants, including Spanish defendant (Article 8 Brussels I) for the allegedly in