ACT_459987/2023

A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageMunich LDInfringement Action—

Dieser Fall zitiert

In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
3(c)	jurisdiction	Bindend	The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction over acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court on 1 June 2023. This is in line with Article 3(c) and 32(1)(a) UPCA.
32(3b)	jurisdiction	Bindend	In accordance with Article 32(3b) of the UPCA, a referral of the counterclaim for revocation to the central division and a continuation of the action for infringement may be made following a decision to this effect.
34	jurisdiction	Bindend	Art. 34 UPCA stipulates that injunctive relief, and other corrective measures can be ordered with respect to all contracting member states where the European Patent has effect.
64(4)	proportionality	Bindend	Article 64(4) of the UPCA explicitly mentions the interests of third parties.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
105.5	jurisdiction	Bindend	SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement – R 105.5
295(c)(i)	jurisdiction	Bindend	Once the central division has delivered its ruling and upheld the patent in an amended form, a stay of the action for infringement may be based exclusively on R. 295(c)(i) or (m) RoP.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
UPC_CFI_198/2023	novelty	Hintergrund	The Central Division Section Paris rendered a decision on 19 July 2024 (ACT_551308/2023, CC_584916/2023, CC_585030/2023). The patent was upheld according to auxiliary request 2.
UPC_CFI_198/2023	novelty	Hintergrund	The Central Division Section Paris rendered a decision on 19 July 2024 (ACT_551308/2023, CC_584916/2023, CC_585030/2023).

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
UPC_CoA_457/2024	novelty	Hintergrund	This decision had been appealed (UPC_CoA_457/2024, UPC_CoA_458/2024 and UPC_CoA_464/2024).

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
EP 3 583 920	inventive step	Überzeugend	a similar lack of inventive step led the EPO's Board of Appeal to conclude that family member EP 3 583 920 B1 ("EP 920") in the version of auxiliary request 2 (with a virtually identical claim set as EP 825 in the version of Auxiliary Request II) lacked inventive step

Zitiert in

Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.

Bisher in keiner anderen Entscheidung unseres Korpus zitiert.