Counterclaim for revocation of a secondary use medical claim patent successful, patent revoked in entirety. Infringement action dismissed. (Article 56 EPC,  Article 65 UPCA , Article 25 UPCA)  . Validity - Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The invention of the patent is obvious over the clinical trial document cited as...

Infringement action of an amended patent in a bifurcated case dismissed.  (Article 25 UPCA, Article 33  UPCA). The infringement action is unfounded. The challenged embodiments do not infringe the patent in suit in its form as upheld by the CD Milan. Due to the amendment of the patent by the decision of CD Milan, the...

Defendant’s request for extending written procedure dismissed. (Rule . 36 RoP). There is no reason apparent why Samsung’s right to be heard necessitates extending the written procedure. The oral hearing is already scheduled to take place in approximately two months, so that the conclusion of the written proceedings...

Request for review of order regarding dismissal of extension of time period for lodging of a rejoinder denied. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 9 (3) RoP). Reasons why Defendants needed an extension of time is not pointed out in the request for extension or the panel review request. (Rule 9 (3)RoP). Their sole argument can be...

Confidentiality club regime regarding inspection report by expert. (Article 60 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA,  Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure). Confidential information irrelevant to the question of infringement must be redacted. Access to confidential information relating to the issue of infringement and/or the scope of...

Request for extension of time period for lodging the statement of defence allowed. (Rule 9.3 RoP). It is in the interests of both parties and the Court that the time limits in 3 three parallel cases end at the same time. The extension of the time periods is not expected to cause any significant delay in the proceedings...

Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement; device normally operated in a non-infringing manner (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement is not excluded by the fact that a device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and customers therefore do not regularly make use of the patented...

Preliminary objection granted. Jurisdiction of the UPC (as a common court) with regard to defendants domiciled outside of the EU is governed by the Brussels Regulation pursuant to Article 71b(2) BR. The Statement of claim must contain sufficient facts and submissions to establish internal and international jurisdiction...

Preliminary objections dismissed (R. 20 RoP). Request to set aside a Statement of findings (procès-verbal de constat) and subsequent expert report not granted (R. 334(g) RoP). Reference to French national law to challenge the probative value not relevant as the UPC is governed by specific rules of evidence (Article 53...

Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP). No legitimate interests of the defendants in the application within the meaning of Rule 265.1, para. 3 of the RoP, which might preclude the withdrawal from being permitted, have been put forward or are otherwise apparent. Rather, the parties have declared that...

Provisional injunction, seizure, obligation to provide information granted (Article 62 UPCA), interim award of costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 211.1(d) RoP), no security for enforcement (Article 82(2) UPCA, R. 211.5 RoP). Injunction covering manufacturing may be issued even though the infringing product has so far been...

Failure to meet a time period for submitting a written statement in ongoing proceedings is governed by R. 9.3(a) RoP, (R. 220.3 RoP). R. 320 RoP is relevant if a time limit is missed that relates either to completely new proceedings or to applications made after the conclusion of proceedings, such as the initiation of...

Request for further exchange of written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP). New arguments on inventive steps […] have been raised by NUC in response to the new Auxiliary Requests brought for the first time by HUROM with the Grounds of Appeal and could consequently not have been submitted at an earlier stage. HUROM has been...

Requests for confidentiality made under R. 262.2 RoP must be submitted together with a redacted version and justification together with the document itself. If, on the other hand, a party has not requested under R. 262.2 RoP that certain information in pleadings or evidence be treated as confidential, the member of the...

Ex – parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted for the respondent’s exhibition booth at an upcoming trade fair, pending validity proceedings.  (Rule 192, Rule 194, Rule 197, 199 RoP). The “BZW3005” machine, which is expected to be exhibited at “Productronica” in Munich, may make use of the...

Request rejected for further exchange of written submissions, following reference in Statement of response to auxiliary requests already submitted in the first instance (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP). The Auxiliary Requests must be considered to be part of the appeal proceedings, until and unless indicated otherwise (e.g. by...

Request for public access to the register partially granted (R. 262.1(b) RoP). Reasoned requests to the Registry for written pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court of First Instance, shall be made to the relevant Division. Similarly, reasoned requests for written pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court of...

Security for costs in appeal released following settlement (Article 69(4) UPCA, Article 79 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). R.352.2 RoP, which applies to security for enforcement, applied by way of analogy. This provision applies to security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in the present case. There is a...

Request to grant unitary effect denied (R. 97 RoP). Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent which does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States. No justification can be found to allow for Art. 3(1) of...

Under R. 220.3 RoP, discretionary review is only possible when a timely application within 15 days for leave for appeal is made to and rejected by the CFI. Auxiliary request for CoA to grant leave for appeal inadmissible. Article 73 (2)(b)(ii) UPCA does not empower the Court of Appeal to itself grant leave to appeal ...