On 30 April 2024, the UPC’s Local Division Düsseldorf handed down a new chapter in the 10x Genomics saga. This time the case is not against NanoString (see this post on the lost appeal) but against the US-based company Curio (see this post on the earlier language appeal in this case). The central issue before…
On 3 June 2024, the UPC’s Hamburg Local Division rejected a PI application against UEFA (Union des Associations Européennes de Football) and Kinexon GmBH (a technology partner) in regard to the use of video-assistance referee (VAR) technology at the upcoming European Championship in Germany. The application for preliminary relief concerned EP 1 944 067 (EP…
On 28 May 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (in decision UPC_CoA_22/2024) upheld a decision of the Court of First Instance, Central Division (Paris Seat) not to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC pending parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO concerning the same patent. Following previous Court of Appeal decisions, this non-technical appeal was adjudicated…
Proceedings on the merits and proceedings on provisional measures may be lodged separately before the UPC, but it may also be the case that as part of the infringement case provisional measures are requested. In such a case before the Helsinki local division the first instance court held that the UPC was not competent (see…
In Belgium, descriptive seizures (called “saisie-description” in Belgium) are long-standing ex parte procedures to collect evidence of infringement. When a Court grants a saisie request, the said authorisation can later be opposed by the seized party. The seized party can in particular argue that IP right invoked was not prima facie valid. By the time…
It is well known that the EPO Boards of Appeal take a strict line on admissibility of new elements of the appeal case under Articles 12 and 13 RPBA. But if the request to hold new elements inadmissible is itself filed late, the admissibility of the inadmissibility request may be questioned, see e.g. T 500/16…
In a revocation action the patent may be amended by the patent proprietor. According to Rule 30 RoP this should be done with an application; for subsequent amendments the explicit approval of the court should be sought. In the present case the patent proprietor tried to introduce amendments that had also been filed in another…
Following the issuance of G 2/21 last year, we asked whether the plausibility elephant had left the room. Our Kluwer colleague and friend Miquel Montañá discussed this issue more recently here. Several decisions have meanwhile been issued applying the new “test” in G2/21, the lucidity of which may have reminded readers of the oracle of…
In accordance with the principles of procedural economy and cost efficiency as well as a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties, which must be considered in the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure pursuant to Article 41(3) UPCA, the proceedings are not required to be stayed under Rule 311.1, first sentence RoP,…
In a Judgment dated 5 December 2023 in the landmark fingolimod case, Barcelona Commercial Court no. 10 rejected an action brought on grounds of unfair competition by the holder of a patent application. In unique circumstances, the claimant sought to prevent generic competitors from launching on the market during the pre-grant provisional protection period. Is…
