390 results found

The term “alkali-free” was interpreted not as a complete absence but as a concentration below a specific threshold defined in the patent itself.

On 8 May 2025, Advocate General Szpunar issued his long-awaited Opinion in two pending referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Mio and USM Haller/konektra cases...

The decision concerns an examination appeal related to eye-tracking, particularly generating a profile reflecting a user's eye movements while reading an electronic book.

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to techniques for providing augmented reality overlays in the context of social networks based on geographic location.

The BGH considered the wording of this provision to be ambiguous.

In a current decision (BGH 5 StR 394/08) the Federal Supreme Court ("Bundesgerichtshof", "BGH") has taken a stance regarding a compliance officer’s responsibility within a company.

The application relates to online payments, particularly by using the user's device instead of the merchant's PoS terminal.

This decision concerns an invention related to tracking and collecting data about containers. The distinguishing features of the main and the first auxiliary request were considered non-technical.

The Court of Appeal reviews ex officio whether a statement of appeal is validly signed under R. 224, R. 4.1 RoP, irrespective of when a party raises the objection

Following execution of the inspection, the court-appointed expert prepared a detailed written description of the findings, which was uploaded to the CMS by the Sub-Registry. This description constitutes the central documentary evidence from the inspection measure and triggers the disclosure procedure governed by Art. 60(8) UPCA, R. 198(1) and R. 199(2) RoP.

The Court dismissed Defendants’ preliminary objection, holding that in particular Art. 3 and 32(1) UPCA) do not provide for any temporal limitation of the exclusive competence of the Court concerning the acts of alleged infringements, whether acts have taken place before or after the entry into force of the UPCA. This is already confirmed by the CoA (UPC_CoA_156/2025 order of 2 June 2025, XSYS/ESKO).

The Unified Patent Court has now processed hundreds of cases since opening in 2023, revealing emerging patterns in litigation success rates, procedural timelines, and forum preferences.

[5] Art. 34 UPCA states that “Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect”. It is not meant to confine the UPC’s jurisdiction to its own territory. Art. 34 UPCA clarifies that as a rule – unless a more limited scope is requested (cf Art. 43, 76 UPCA) – decisions of the UPC shall cover the territory of all Contracting Member States where a European patent has effect.

Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.

Die Anmelder sollten sich der Folgen dieser Entscheidungen bewusst sein.

Like J 28/03, J 01/24 deals with the question whether a European patent application is still "pending" after filing an appeal against the decision to grant the respective patent...

Rapid Growth and Significant Impact: Since its start two years ago, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has rapidly grown in case volume and significantly impacted the European and global patent landscapes...

On 29 January 2016 the Mannheim Regional Court granted an injunction against HTC Germany for infringement of NTT DoCoMo's European patent EP 1 914 945, which was found to be essential for UMTS.