UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 2258/2026

—·EP3743812: APPLICATION RUNTIME DETERMINED DYNAMICAL ALLOCATION OF HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTE RESOURCES

Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Iram Kamal (Frohwitter Intellectual Property Counselors); Jan Gigerich (IPCGS Gigerich Sedlmaier Patentanwalt Rechtsanwalt Part mdB)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technology
Computing & AI
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
30. Juni 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-06-30
    PI abgelehntEinstweilige VerfügungProvisional measures

    The Dusseldorf Local Division rejected ParTec's application for provisional measures against the Lenovo defendants concerning EP 3 743 812. The Court held that where the application rests on an allegedly ongoing, irreparable loss of market share, a detailed and substantiated account of the market situation before the accused product entered the market is required, and ParTec's allegations of harm were vague and unsubstantiated; the newly attacked embodiment was a non-infringing alternative on the claim construction of the Munich Local Division's merits decision, and the defendants' potential exclusion from the market outweighed the applicant's asserted harm, with the pending main proceedings the appropriate forum. The applicant bears the costs, leave to appeal was granted and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.

    Rechtsfragen:provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA and R. 206, 209, 212 RoPnecessity of provisional measures where main proceedings on the merits are pendingsubstantiation of irreparable harm and loss of market share between direct competitorsweighing of the parties' interestscosts by analogy with R. 118.5 RoP and setting the value in dispute
Dokumente
  • 4ebc315c-da87-4368-9658-5364bca682ca.pdf2026-06-30EN
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The potential harm to the defendants from immediate exclusion from the market outweighs the applicant's vague and unsubstantiated allegations of harm

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211.3 RoP

  • The newly attacked embodiment is a non-infringing alternative on the claim construction adopted in the Munich Local Division's decision on the merits

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA

  • The main proceedings are the appropriate forum for a comprehensive examination of validity, infringement and quantification of damages

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA, R. 209 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Absent provisional measures the applicant faces hardly reversible disadvantages, in particular erosion of its licensing programme and market position

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP

  • The value in dispute amounts to only EUR 500,000 because only one patent and one embodiment are at issue

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 370 RoP