Alle Fälle anzeigen
ORD 9091/2025
—·EP2263098B1
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerfahrensantragKategorieVerfahrensführungsanordnungen
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter: Christof Augenstein (Kather Augenstein); Benedikt Walesch (Kather Augenstein); Melissa Lutz (Kather Augenstein)Beklagte
- Apple Inc.
- Apple Distribution International Ltd.
- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG
- Apple GmbH
- Apple Retail France EURL
Vertreter: Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Tobias Wuttke (Bardehle Pagenberg) - Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Richter
- Ronny Thomas · Presiding judge and judge-rapporteur
- Berenice Thom · Legally qualified judge
- Margot Kokke · Legally qualified judge
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 14. Apr. 2025
Entscheidungen
- 2025-04-14Generic Order
Düsseldorf Local Division decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action by Ona Patents SL against Apple Inc. (and affiliates) and Apple's counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than bifurcating under Art. 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA in favour of joint hearing for reasons of efficiency and to ensure consistent interpretation of the patent by a single panel.
Rechtsfragen:Bifurcation of infringement and revocation proceedings under Art. 33(3) UPCAJoint hearing of infringement and counterclaim for revocation under Rule 37 RoPProcedural efficiency
Dokumente
- EBF24C1A8E8664EACA395BEB60F3063C_en.pdf2025-04-14EN