Ausgangs-Basisraten

Keine Sachentscheidungen im aktuellen Umfang.

• Sonstige169

• Munich LD57 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Paris CD27 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Mannheim LD25 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Dusseldorf LD22 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Hamburg LD10 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Paris LD7 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Nordic-Baltic RD5 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Milan LD5 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• The Hague LD4 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Milan CD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Munich CD2 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —
• Court of Appeal1 fällePI-Erteilungsquote: —Verletzungsquote: —Nichtigerklärungsquote: —

• 2025-08-25UPC_APP_22894/2024Munich LDNur prozessualThe Munich Local Division ruled that Qualcomm's preliminary objection challenging the validity of the withdrawal of an opt-out for EP 1 875 683 was inadmissible under Rule 19.1 RoP, and confirmed that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective.
• 2025-08-25UPC_APP_22897/2024Munich LDAbgewiesenPreliminary objection by Qualcomm entities (Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH) challenging jurisdiction dismissed by judge-rapporteur. Defendants argued that the withdrawal of the opt-out of EP 1 552 399 by a UPC representative (Ms Huang) was invalid for lack of power of attorney. The court held that a registered UPC representative (Art. 48 UPCA, R. 5.3(b)(i) RoP) does not need a written mandate for opt-out withdrawal; formal requirements were met and the patent falls within UPC jurisdiction. Appeal against this decision was not allowed.
• 2025-06-20UPC_APP_28294/2024Munich LDAbgewiesenThe Munich Local Division rejected Motorola's preliminary objection to jurisdiction, holding that the court had jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA based on alleged infringing acts in Germany, and allowed proceedings to continue.
• 2025-06-20UPC_APP_61580/2024Munich LDAbgewiesenPreliminary objection by Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Flextronics International Europe B.V. challenging jurisdiction of Munich Local Division was rejected in Headwater Research LLC v. Motorola entities (EP 3 110 069). The court held: (1) Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA jurisdiction is established by the claimant's credible assertion of infringement in Germany, including delivery of devices; (2) Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 UPCA does not narrow the rule for multiple defendants where each infringes in Germany or has seat there; (3) Flextronics as logistics provider for Motorola was plausibly alleged to have participated in infringement, supporting Munich jurisdiction. Appeal not allowed.
• 2025-06-20UPC_APP_30222/2024Munich LDNur prozessualMunich Local Division dismissed preliminary objections to jurisdiction filed by Motorola Mobility LLC and related entities against Headwater Research LLC's infringement action (UPC_CFI_149/2024). The court upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for defendants that committed infringing acts in Germany and are domiciled there, and also upheld jurisdiction under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA (with a narrower interpretation) over the remaining defendants including Digital River Ireland Ltd. Leave to appeal was not granted.
• 2025-05-27UPC_APP_16032/2025Hamburg LDNur prozessualThe Hamburg Local Division rejected the preliminary objection (Einspruch) filed by Epson entities in Dolby International AB's infringement action, finding no substantial doubts about the validity of Dolby's withdrawal of opt-out, and ordering the proceedings to continue with the statement of defence as the next step.
• 2025-05-23UPC_APP_19773/2025The Hague LDNur prozessualProcedural order of The Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities concerning lipid nanoparticle delivery technology. The order addresses preliminary objections and jurisdictional matters concerning certain Moderna entities (Moderna Spain, Moderna Poland, Moderna Norway), examining whether their activities constitute or enable infringement within the UPC territory.
• 2025-04-17UPC_APP_11261/2025Munich LDNur prozessualThe Local Division Munich ruled on preliminary objections filed by BioNTech and Pfizer entities challenging UPC jurisdiction over Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine variants sold before 1 June 2023, addressing the UPC's temporal jurisdiction in relation to the opt-out regime and the date of UPC operation.