UPC CFI 1920/2025

Vor dem UPC: Illumina, Inc. (2 Verfahren)·Element Biosciences, Inc. (4 Verfahren)

• 2026-10-16
  InfringementÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: Order of the Lisbon Local Division following the interim conference under R. 105.5 RoP. It fixes the value of the infringement action at EUR 8,000,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 12,000,000, and sets deadlines for cost estimates, clarification of the infringement allegations, the hearing agenda and attendees. No substantive ruling.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)

  • Interim conference (R. 105.5 RoP)
  • Value of the case and recoverable costs ceiling
  • Added matter and inventive step attacks
  • Number of auxiliary requests
  • Conditional counterclaim for revocation
• 2026-06-22
  Infringement ActionÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The court issued a procedural order scheduling an Interim Conference for 16 October 2026 and an Oral Hearing for 17 December 2026. The panel confirmed it will hear the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation together, and appointed a Technically Qualified Judge.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)

  • Scheduling of interim conference and oral hearing
  • Consolidation of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (R. 37.2 RoP)
  • Appointment of technically qualified judge
• 2026-04-01
  Infringement ActionÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The court rejected the defendants' request to dismiss the infringement action under R. 361 RoP, finding that the omission of the 'fluidic device' limitation was a mere clerical error rather than a fundamental flaw warranting dismissal. The court also granted the claimant's request under R. 9 RoP to replace the original Statement of Claim with a corrected version, while allowing the defendants 10 days to respond to the specific corrections.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)

  • R. 361 RoP request to dismiss action as manifestly lacking foundation in law
  • Clerical error in Statement of Claim omitting 'fluidic device' limitation from claim 1 feature breakdown and injunctive relief
  • Scope of injunctive relief relative to patent claim scope
  • R. 9 RoP correction of obvious mistake in Statement of Claim
  • Whether correction of SOC constitutes a change in the motion of the claim under R. 263 RoP