Category: Unified Patent Court
-
UPC judges not necessarily aligned on claim amendments in preliminary injunction proceedings: Court of Appeal to discuss soon
On the same day (July 26, 2024), the Dusseldorf Local Division granted leave to amend patent claims in a preliminary injunction proceeding while the Court of Appeal left open how the admissibility of a narrowing of patent claims in a PI proceeding would be resolved.
-
ASUSTeK affiliate suing Lenovo in UPC as well as Munich I Regional Court: September trial
Innovative Sonic Limited is suing Lenovo in the UPC as well as the Munich I Regional Court over ASUSTeK patents.
-
UPC’s Paris LD believes intervenor can’t challenge patent-in-suit in ANY way after defendant failed to bring revocation counterclaim
The Unified Patent Court’s Paris Local Division denied a motion to stay an infringement action over an intervenor’s revocation action filed with the Paris Central Division.
-
UPC’s Court of Appeal revives Progress v. AWM & Schnell infringement action deemed untimely by Milan LD after evidence preservation
Through a reserve-and-remand decision, the UPC’s Court of Appeal has breathed new life into a patent infringement action by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM and Schnell — and has provided clarifications regarding preservation-of-evidence proceedings.
-
UPC judges don’t accept “attorneys’ eyes only” designations for confidential information: potential effects on U.S. litigation
Decision after decision, including the two most recently-published orders, the UPC declines to limit access to confidential business or technical information to outside counsel.
-
Interview with UPC Judge Dr. Walter Schober (Vienna LD) on what’s been achieved and what could be improved
One of ip fray‘s objectives regarding the UPC — apart from covering the development of case law (e.g., today’s article on the Meril v. Edwards Lifesciences validity decision) — is to introduce influential, but thus far lesser-known, patent judges to the IP community. On a hot summer day earlier this week ip fray‘s founder had…
-
UPC’s Paris CD keeps Edwards Lifesciences patent on prosthetic heart valve alive based on late-filed auxiliary request
The UPC’s Paris Central Division has upheld an Edwards Lifesciences patent in an amended form on a procedural basis that will result in an important clarification by the Court of Appeal.
-
UK court to inform UPC, German courts that FRAND determinations in Panasonic v. OPPO & Xiaomi will come down before Christmas
Mr Justice Meade of the England & Wales High Court plans to officially inform his colleagues at the Unified Patent Court and certain German national courts that his FRAND determinations in Panasonic’s disputes with OPPO and Xiaomi will come down before the end of the year.
-
Explicit split: UPC’s Mannheim LD elects to impose more restrictive confidentiality regime in Panasonic v. OPPO than Munich
The Unified Patent Court’s Mannheim Local Division decided to impose stricter confidentiality requirements for the Panasonic-OPPO dispute than its Munich counterpart.
-
UPC Roundup: two new appellate decisions, important question for infringement standard, new cases, upcoming hearings
This article merely summarizes and links to several recent LinkedIn posts by ip fray, so as to provide a convenient overview for readers of the website and email subscribers. 1. Two new decisions by the Court of Appeal (Friday and Sunday) (link to LinkedIn post) 2. Important question for infringement standard: what if the solution…