Übersicht · Eingereicht: 2. Mai 2025
UPC_CFI_387/2025
ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE
Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenHamburg LDProvisional measuresCase Closed
Dieser Fall zitiert
In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.
EuGH · 8
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 71b(2) Brussels Ia | UPC jurisdiction for patent infringements in UPC member states regardless of defendant domicile | Bindend | The UPC as a common Court has jurisdiction regardless of the defendant's domicile for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state (Art. 71b (2) in conjunction with Art. 7 sub (2) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). |
| Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia | anchor defendant – claims closely connected | Bindend | the claims are closely connected in the meaning of Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). |
| Regulation 2023/988/EU | Authorized Representative obligation for non-EU manufacturers | Bindend | As it is not possible for non-EU based manufacturers to sale electronics in the EU without an Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of produ... |
| Regulation 2019/1020/EU | Authorized Representative as indispensable party in distribution of electronics | Bindend | regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products), the legal framework puts the Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party in the distribution of electr... |
| Art. 71b(2) Brussels Ia | UPC jurisdiction for patent infringements in UPC member states regardless of defendant domicile | Bindend | The UPC as a common Court has jurisdiction regardless of the defendant's domicile for all patent infringements committed in a UPC member state (Art. 71b (2) in conjunction with Art. 7 sub (2) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). |
| Art. 8(1) Brussels Ia | anchor defendant – claims closely connected | Bindend | the claims are closely connected in the meaning of Art. 8 (1) Brussels I recast regulation (1215/2012/EU). |
| Regulation 2023/988/EU | Authorized Representative obligation for non-EU manufacturers | Bindend | regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products), the legal framework puts the Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party |
| Regulation 2019/1020/EU | Authorized Representative as indispensable party in distribution of electronics | Bindend | regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products), the legal framework puts the Authorized Representative in the role of being an indispensable party in the distribution of electr... |
courtName.other · 4
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 63(1) | Authorized Representative as intermediary subject to injunction | Bindend | An Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products) is an intermediary and can as such be subject to an injunction, Art. 63 (1) 2nd senten... |
| Article 62(2) | preliminary injunction | Bindend | Preliminary injunction; Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2) RoP; Authorized representative; Intermediary, Art. 63 (1) 2nd sentence UPCA |
| Article 63(1) | Authorized Representative as intermediary subject to injunction | Bindend | An Authorized Representative in the Union (regulations 2023/988/EU on general product safety and 2019/1020/EU on market surveillance and compliance of products) is an intermediary and can as such be subject to an injunction, Art. 63 (1) 2nd senten... |
| Article 62(2) | preliminary injunction | Bindend | Preliminary injunction; Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2) RoP; Authorized representative; Intermediary, Art. 63 (1) 2nd sentence UPCA |
UPC (Erstinstanz) · 4
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_701/2024 | cost decision in PI proceedings – Hamburg LD practice | Überzeugend | According to the case law of the Local Division Hamburg, a decision on the obligation to bear legal costs is justified (Order of 21 February 2025, ORD_68880/2024, UPC_CFI_701/2024; Order of 26 June 2024, ORD_38032/2024, UPC_CFI_124/2024). |
| UPC_CFI_124/2024 | cost decision in PI proceedings – Hamburg LD practice | Überzeugend | a decision on the obligation to bear legal costs is justified (Order of 21 February 2025, ORD_68880/2024, UPC_CFI_701/2024; Order of 26 June 2024, ORD_38032/2024, UPC_CFI_124/2024). |
| UPC_CFI_701/2024 | cost decision in PI proceedings – Hamburg LD practice | Überzeugend | According to the case law of the Local Division Hamburg, a decision on the obligation to bear legal costs is justified (Order of 21 February 2025, ORD_68880/2024, UPC_CFI_701/2024; Order of 26 June 2024, ORD_38032/2024, UPC_CFI_124/2024). |
| UPC_CFI_124/2024 | cost decision in PI proceedings – Hamburg LD practice | Überzeugend | a decision on the obligation to bear legal costs is justified (Order of 21 February 2025, ORD_68880/2024, UPC_CFI_701/2024; Order of 26 June 2024, ORD_38032/2024, UPC_CFI_124/2024). |
UPC-Berufungsgericht · 4
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_523/2024 | cost decision should be issued in inter partes PI proceedings | Bindend | The Court is of the opinion, like the Court of Appeal (Order of 3 March 2025, UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Sumi Agro v. Syngen-ta; Order of 6 August 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2024, 10x Genomics et al v. NanoString), that a cost decision should be issued in inter pa... |
| UPC_CoA_335/2024 | cost decision should be issued in inter partes PI proceedings | Bindend | Order of 6 August 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2024, 10x Genomics et al v. NanoString), that a cost decision should be issued in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures, since it concludes the action. |
| UPC_CoA_523/2024 | cost decision should be issued in inter partes PI proceedings | Bindend | The Court is of the opinion, like the Court of Appeal (Order of 3 March 2025, UPC_CoA_523/2024 – Sumi Agro v. Syngen-ta; Order of 6 August 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2024, 10x Genomics et al v. NanoString), that a cost decision should be issued in inter pa... |
| UPC_CoA_335/2024 | cost decision should be issued in inter partes PI proceedings | Bindend | Order of 6 August 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2024, 10x Genomics et al v. NanoString), that a cost decision should be issued in inter partes proceedings for provisional measures, since it concludes the action. |
Verfahrensordnung · 2
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| 209.2 | PI procedure | Bindend | Preliminary injunction; Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2) RoP; Authorized representative |
| 209.2 | PI procedure | Bindend | Preliminary injunction; Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2) RoP; Authorized representative |
Zitiert in
Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.
Bisher in keiner anderen Entscheidung unseres Korpus zitiert.