Not necessary to attempt to serve decision by default in accordance with R. 274 RoP before an order that steps  taken is good service (R. 275.2 RoP) where the application for a provisional measure could not be served in accordance with R. 274 RoP and there is no indication that the decision by default can be served in...

Evidence is not set exhaustively in R. 170 RoP.  NJ wishes to examine the two wigs deposited at the registry (exhibits nos. 861 and 16), position one or more bright lights at the connection areas of the cap, specifically at the band, and take photographs and enlargements of them to show. The measure requested by NJ...

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
Revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).  Court not convinced that it would have been obvious to suggest the claimed vaporizer, regardless of ‘Cross’ being combined with an alleged common general knowledge or with ‘Lee’. To asses inventive step (Arti...

Patent revoked because of ‘added matter' (Article 65 UPCA)(Article 138(1)(c) EPC). It extends beyond the content of the European Patent Application as filed (MWE 3) and beyond the content of the parent application (MWE 4). Person skilled in the art of vaping devices (Article 56 EPC) is a mechanical engineer with either...

Change in parties (R. 305 RoP, R. 306 RoP, R. 310 RoP). Sanofi-Aventis France, which ceased to exist, is replaced by Sanofi Winthrop Industrie. As Sanofi Winthrop Industrie is already party to the proceedings this replacement has no consequence on proceedings. Sanofi Winthrop Industrie is bound by the proceedings as...

o patent infringement: neither literal nor by equivalence (Article 25 UPCA). The assessment of the scope of protection of a patent is in two stages (Article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). In the first stage, the literal infringement must be assessed on the basis of the characteristics of the patent in the light of...

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI President, BF exaQC v NVIDIA
Application to change the language of the proceedings from German to English dismissed (Article 49 (5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP). Given its financial resources and logistical support, NVIDIA has the capacity and means to conduct proceedings in a foreign language – especially...

Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA). All features of claim 1 are used in the optical unit. Invalidity objection (subject-matter extends beyond the application as filed, Article 123(2) EPC)) not addressed in terms of content since no counterclaim for revocation was filed (R. 25 RoP, R. 42 RoP). No (definitional)...

No reason not to include independent patent consultant for Maxeon Solar and involved in all patent matters. He provides support in the preparation of written submissions and thus requires unrestricted access to all the revenue, profit and sales figures. The fact that Mr. […] is not an employee of the Claimant or an...

Withdrawal of action by party consent (R. 265 RoP). The applications to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation are admissible since there is no final decision in the actions in view of the pending appeal, and the Court of Appeal is responsible for deciding on the permissibility of the...

Inadmissible application for cost decision following decision on provisional measures. An application for a decision for costs can only be lodged within one month after the service of the decision on the merits. (R. 150 RoP). If the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits of the case pursuant to R. 213 RoP, ...

Penalty payment sanction (Article 82(4)UPCA) on a confidentiality order (Article 58 UPCA) can only be imposed on a party, but not against their representatives, which does not exclude the parties' liability for infringements by their representatives. Insofar as the requests relate to court staff, there is also no legal...

Bifurcation: parties agree and most practical solution (Article 33(3) UPCA). As the oral hearing is already scheduled by the Central Division – and its date is approaching within the next two to three months – a referral of the counterclaim to the Central Division appears to be the most practical solution to avoid...

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Revocation action unfounded, patent infringed. Direct infringement of product claim (Article 25(a) UPCA) even though voice control feature requires activation. If a device in the offered or offered or sold is not yet suitable for making use of all the features of...

Instead of staying the proceedings, the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaims is extended to 27.2.2025 (R. 9 RoP, R. 295 RoP) because of oral hearing in the EPO appeals proceedings scheduled for 13 February 2025: allows for a more overall procedural efficiency, on one hand not staying this...

Confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP). Witness's personal details and copy of his passport do not qualify as confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The witness's personal data are protected against disclosure to third parties by the mechanism provided for in Rule 262 RoP. Remaining information qualifies as...

The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a national court - before entry into force of the UPCA - has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages (Article 32(1) UPCA). The...

EP 453 maintained in part based on claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Admissible new documents Claimant (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The claimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or affecting...

No suspensive effect of appeal justified (R. 223 RoP, R. 25 RoP) by (i) a judgement to be expected ‘very soon’ in parallel proceedings, to which Bhagat is not a (intervening) party, and (ii) an unsubstantiated statement that there are “considerable doubts” as to the validity of the patent while no counterclaim for...

Justified to allow discretionary review in appeal of orders of the judge-rapporteur (absent panel review) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The question whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal is an access to justice issue which the Court of Appeal can raise...