390 results found

With the transposition of the EU Directive on representative actions into the German national law, a true class action will for the first time be added to Germany's litigation landscape.

The appellant argued that the CFI's reference to R. 354.4 RoP in the impugned order created the impression that leave to appeal had already been granted, analogous to Total v. Texas Instruments...

Discretionary decisions on belated patent amendments under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP are subject to limited appellate review

Furthermore, the CJEU also answers the question of how to assess whether the features of the design were dictated only by its technical function.

The Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an enforcement order imposing significant penalties on Kodak for non-compliance with court orders in a patent infringement case brought by Fujifilm. The decision clarifies critical questions about the territorial scope of UPC enforcement powers, the authority of Judge-rapporteurs to issue penalty orders, and the extent of information disclosure obligations for defendants operating across multiple jurisdictions.

In the last few months there have been a series of decisions of the Mannheim and Düsseldorf regional courts interpreting the requirements of the CJEU's, judgment in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v ZTE Corp (C-170/13)...

A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP if it is seeking protection for information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. However, the application must be made during the proceedings on the merits if it can be reasonably foreseen that confidentiality issues will arise.

When reviewing a Judge-Rapporteur's order, the full panel will not re-examine the entire decision but will confine its assessment to the specific, substantiated grounds for review raised by the applicant.

The defendants, including a US-based defendant, did not file a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP and were therefore deemed to have submitted to the UPC's jurisdiction.

The UPC Court of Appeal ("CoA") has sided with the Düsseldorf Local Division in upholding a preliminary injunction (PI) granted in respect of sales of Mammut's avalanche rescue device in Germany and Austria.

A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion.

Foreign claimants might be confronted with a duty to provide security for costs if they commence court proceedings in Germany.

The judgment is the first time a German court dealt with the legal qualification of over-the-top (OTT) communications services.

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).

As of 1 July 2017 new rules under the Criminal Code (StGB) and Criminal Procedural Order (StPO) shall enter into force to regulate the recovery of criminal proceeds.

Hal Lieberman and Daniel Kornstein conclude their recent column about the Conference on Material Claims Against Germany with a disclaimer that they do not have any clients with claims against the conference.

Under Art. 74(2) UPCA, appeals against revocation decisions have automatic suspensive effect, preserving patent status erga omnes, unlike the general rule in Art. 74(1) UPCA

Filing a declaration of non-infringement before patent grant raises a question of admissibility, not of UPC competence, under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA