390 results found

The nullity plaintiffs raised two new validity attacks during the oral hearing: a novelty attack based on D7 (Onsemi) and an inventive step attack combining D3 (Nguyen) and D4 (Lürkens).

Requirements for a "reasoned request" for access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.

When assessing whether a claim for financial compensation of co-authorized persons is necessary with respect to the principle of material justice ...

The ECJ made the decision upon a request for a preliminary ruling referred to it by the Hooge Rad of the Netherlands ("Hooge Rad", order for reference dated 21 November 2013).

On 2 April 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") delivered its judgment in Coty Germany v Amazon (Case C‑567/18)

In view of the principle of equality of arms, Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190.1 RoP have a broader scope than the initial wording may suggest (evidence in support of its claims).

An application to change the language of proceedings before the Central Division is not a claim but an exceptional procedural application (Art. 49(6) UPCA, R. 334(h) RoP)

The Court of Appeal only intervenes if awarded costs are beyond "reasonable and proportionate" or deviate from principles inherent in Art. 69 (1) UPCA and R. 150 et seqq.

A value-in-dispute determination is a procedural decision governed by R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP, even when included in the operative part of a final decision.

Security for costs can only be requested by defendants, not claimants, in infringement or revocation actions

Requirements of R. 295(a) RoP not fulfilled, appeal of the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) against the first instance decision of the German Federal Patent Court (FPC)...

The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of such evidence.

Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).

The Defendant lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Higher Regional Court of Duesseldorf.

Traditionally, collective actions have not been part of the civil law litigation landscape. However, the landscape for collective redress in Europe has evolved over the last few years...

R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought "against the defendant of the claim ". It does not apply when a decision by default is requested by the defendant...

The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response.