28 results found

The Court of Appeal examines a request for discretionary review in a patent dispute between Optopol Technology and Topcon Corporation concerning EP 2 845 534. The case involves interpretation of procedural rules governing standing and review processes under the Unified Patent Court framework.

Arendt Case Review is a newsletter designed by Arendt Litigation Group to inform you about recent decisions of the Luxembourg and/or European courts.

The Court of appeal's decision brings a final answer to the debate. While the Luxembourg courts have clarified on numerous occasions the modalities surrounding the 1958 New York Convention...

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses procedural matters concerning time limits in an appeal case between Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited and Koninklijke Philips N.V. The case involves European Patent EP 2 867 997 and concerns the application of Article 77(1) of the UPCA and various Rules of Procedure.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court examines the stringent requirements for granting suspensive effect under Article 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223.2 RoP in patent litigation. This decision clarifies when an applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo during an appeal can exceptionally outweigh the respondent's interests in cost proceedings related to revocation actions.

This is in accordance with the principles of procedural economy and cost efficiency as well as a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties...

The Court of Appeal examines a request for discretionary review in a patent dispute between Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, and KEEEX SAS concerning European Patent EP 2 949 070. This procedural matter involves multiple rules of procedure including provisions on discretionary review, case management, and appellate processes within the Unified Patent Court framework.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect when filing an application for rehearing under Article 81(2) UPCA. The decision clarifies that suspensive effect is not automatic and requires independent substantiation beyond the grounds for rehearing itself, with applicants needing to demonstrate concrete, irreparable prejudice to justify departure from the default rule of continued enforceability.

The UPC Court of Appeal Luxembourg addresses critical questions about patent amendment admissibility, claim construction methodology, and jurisdictional boundaries in cross-border infringement cases. This decision clarifies the standard of review for patent amendments under Rule 30.1 RoP and establishes important precedent on burden of proof requirements when alleging infringement in non-UPCA member states like Poland.

Under Rule 363.2 of the Rules of Procedure, orders given pursuant to Rules 360, 361 and 362 of the Rules of Procedure are final decisions...

The Court of Appeal in Luxembourg addresses critical procedural questions regarding the suspension of first-instance proceedings during appeals of preliminary objection rejections under the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The decision examines whether exceptional circumstances warrant staying proceedings and clarifies the court's authority to conditionally add interveners as parties to ensure counterclaim admissibility.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal examines multiple appeals stemming from infringement and revocation proceedings between Fujifilm Corporation and Kodak entities concerning European Patent EP 3 476 616. The case involves complex jurisdictional questions under the UPC Agreement and raises fundamental issues about patent validity and enforcement across Germany and the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.

Arendt Case Review est une newsletter conçue par Arendt Litigation Group pour vous informer de décisions récentes rendues par les juridictions luxembourgeoises et/ou européennes.

On 23 March 2023, Luxembourg adopted Bill 7671 on the reform of arbitration, which completely recasts the provisions of the New Code of Civil Procedure relating to arbitration, which had remained virtually...

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a procedural question regarding conditional appeals in patent revocation counterclaims. This case examines when fee obligations are triggered for counterclaimants who lodge conditional appeals tied to the infringement claimant's appeal, and how the Rules of Procedure govern such conditional filings in UPC proceedings.

Arendt Case Review is a newsletter designed by the Arendt Litigation Group to inform you about recent decisions of the Luxembourg and/or European courts.