Übersicht · Eingereicht: 25. Juni 2025
UPC_CFI_575/2025
TELESCOPIC BELT CONVEYOR
VerletzungHauptverletzungsklageMannheim LDInfringementWritten Phase
Dieser Fall zitiert
In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.
UPC-Berufungsgericht · 8
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_188/2024 | Art.33(1)(a) UPCA — place of infringement interpreted like Art.7(2) Brussels I recast | Überzeugend | The Defendants refer to the order by the Court of Appeal of 3 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_188/2024, para. 26) where the Court of Appeal has ruled that the place 'where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur' as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place 'where the harmful event occurred or may occur' of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation |
| UPC_CoA_188/2024 | jurisdiction — whether infringement in fact occurred to be decided on merits | Überzeugend | Whether Hemtech is in fact involved in infringing activities is to be decided in the case on the merits (CoA 3 September 2024, UPC_CoA_188/2024, Aylo v Dish, para 18). |
| UPC_CoA_534/2024 | Art. 32 UPCA and Brussels I jurisdiction | Überzeugend | Reference is made to, CoA 3 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, Belkin v Philips). |
| UPC_CoA_30/2024 | Art. 32 UPCA / Brussels I jurisdiction | Überzeugend | CoA 16 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_30/2024, Fives v REEL) |
| UPC_CoA_156/2025 | Art. 32 UPCA / Brussels I jurisdiction | Überzeugend | CoA 2 June 2025 (UPC_CoA_156/2025 – XSYS v Esko) |
| UPC_CoA_380/2025 | Art. 32 UPCA / Brussels I jurisdiction | Überzeugend | CoA 20 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_380/2025, expert v Viosys) |
| UPC_CoA_288/2025 | Art. 32 UPCA / Brussels I jurisdiction | Überzeugend | CoA 6 October 2025 (UPC_UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025 UPC_CoA_291/2025, Roku v Dolby and Sun) |
| UPC_CoA_317/2025 | Art. 32 UPCA / Brussels I jurisdiction | Überzeugend | CoA 28 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_317/2025, UPC CoA376/2025, Barco v Yealink) |
Verfahrensordnung · 5
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | preliminary objection procedure | Bindend | SUBJECT: R. 19 RoP - Preliminary objection |
| 13.1 | statement of claim — requirement to specify infringing acts with dates and places | Bindend | Honeywell did not specify any instances of alleged infringement in Germany with dates and places, as is required pursuant to R. 13.1 RoP |
| 19 | preliminary objection | Bindend | SUBJECT: R. 19 RoP - Preliminary objection R. 333 RoP - Review |
| 333 | review application | Bindend | SUBJECT: R. 19 RoP - Preliminary objection R. 333 RoP - Review |
| 20.1 | no additional hearing required for preliminary objection | Bindend | Other than the Defendants seem to assert, R. 20(1) RoP does not require that a defendant has to be given another opportunity to be heard. |
EPÜ-Artikel · 3
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 33(1) UPCA | competence of local division | Bindend | Pursuant to Art. 33(1) UPCA an infringement action shall be brought before the local or regional division hosted by the Contracting Member State where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA) or the local or regional division ... where the defendant ... has its residence or (principal) place of business (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA). |
| Article 31 UPCA | international jurisdiction over non-EU defendant (Hemtech, Bosnia) | Bindend | Hemtech is not domiciled in the EU and that for international jurisdiction, Art. 31 UPCA and Art. 7(2), 71a and 71b Brussels I recast regulation were at issue. |
| Article 32 UPCA | competence of Court | Bindend | With regard to Art. 32 UPCA and Art. 71a and 71b of the Brussels I recast Regulation |
EuGH · 3
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brussels I recast Regulation Art. 7(2) | place of harmful event — special jurisdiction | Überzeugend | Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place 'where the harmful event occurred or may occur' of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements |
| C-189/87 Kalfelis v Schroeder | special jurisdiction rules must be interpreted restrictively | Überzeugend | The Defendants point out that the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) (CJEU 27 September 1988, C-189/87, Kalfelis/Schroeder) has ruled that rules of special jurisdiction must be interpreted restrictively |
| Brussels I recast Regulation Art. 71a/71b | relationship between Brussels I and UPC jurisdiction | Bindend | Art. 32 UPCA and Art. 71a and 71b of the Brussels I recast Regulation |
Zitiert in
Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.
Bisher in keiner anderen Entscheidung unseres Korpus zitiert.