UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 582/2024

2. Okt. 2024·EP3732827 Einheitspatent · METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING FUNCTIONAL DEVICES AVAILALBLE TO PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Brussels LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication
Sprache
English
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Einstweilige Verfügung erlassenMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC54% (38/70)124
Brussels LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Samuel GranataGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Mélanie BessaudGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Petri RinkinenGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Steven KitchenGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Barco N.V. (9 Verfahren)·Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. (9 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 7 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 145/2026·UPC CoA 84/2026·UPC CFI 185/2026·UPC CFI 806/2025·UPC CoA 317/2025 und 2 weitere

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Brussels LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-05-08
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Brussels Local Division dismissed Yealink's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Final Order of 21 March 2025, which had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures and ordered Barco to pay Yealink's costs up to the EUR 112,000 ceiling. Yealink sought to clarify the order by adding the word 'interim' to the costs award, but the court found no clerical error, miscalculation or obvious omission warranting rectification. The court confirmed that the costs award of EUR 112,000 against Barco (the unsuccessful party in the provisional measures) was already clearly an interim award on the face of the Final Order.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Rectification of order (R. 353 RoP)
    • Clerical errors, miscalculations and obvious omissions
    • Interim award of costs (R. 150(2) RoP)
    • Application for rectification dismissed
  • 2025-03-21
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Local Division Brussels dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures against Yealink due to lack of urgency. Barco had waited an unreasonably long period before filing, having been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023. Barco was ordered to pay Yealink's costs up to EUR 112,000. Dispute value set at EUR 1,000,000.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Urgency for provisional measures (Rule 211.4 RoP)
    • Territorial competence (Article 33 UPCA)
    • Preliminary objection timing (Rule 19(1) RoP)
    • Brussels I Regulation and UPCA jurisdiction
    • UPC date of filing requirements
Dokumente
Alle 210 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-06-07Nicht öffentlich
Closing Workflow2025-06-07Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-06-07Nicht öffentlich
Closing Workflow2025-06-07Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-06-07Nicht öffentlich
Closing Workflow2025-06-07Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-06-07Nicht öffentlich
Closing Workflow2025-06-07Öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-05-08Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Barco NV applied to the Brussels Local Division for provisional measures against Yealink entities based on EP 3 732 827 (method for making functional devices available to meeting participants). The court dismissed the application solely on the ground of lack of urgency, finding that Barco had been aware of the allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023 and its delay in filing until October 2024 was unreasonable. A subsequent application by Yealink to rectify the costs order by adding the word 'interim' was also dismissed as no clerical error existed.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Lack of urgency: Barco was aware of allegedly infringing products since at least May 2023 and failed to act promptly

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Hinweis: Court found Barco knew of infringing devices since May 2023; objective earliest date for filing was June 2024; waiting until October 2024 was unreasonable.

  • LD Brussels has territorial competence to hear the provisional measures application

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court held Brussels LD competent; Brussels I Regulation amendments were directed only at international jurisdiction, not internal UPC territorial competence under Art. 33 UPCA.

  • Earliest date for UPC jurisdiction is date of grant of the European Patent, not date of registration of unitary effect

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 3(c) UPCA; Art. 32(1)(a)/(c) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court confirmed the relevant starting date for computing UPC jurisdiction is the grant date of the EP, not the later date of unitary effect registration.

  • Conditions for provisional measures are cumulative; failure on urgency alone is sufficient to dismiss without assessing other conditions

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCA; R. 206 RoP

    Hinweis: Court dismissed without reaching infringement or validity merits, consistent with procedural economy of provisional measures proceedings.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Barco's delay in filing was not unreasonable given complexity of infringement analysis

    Kläger

    Begründung: Barco itself admitted infringing products had been on the market for a long time and had been aware since at least May 2023; there was no justification for waiting until October 2024 to file.

  • Rectification of Final Order to add the word 'interim' to costs award was warranted under R. 353 RoP

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 353 RoP

    Begründung: No clerical error, miscalculation or obvious omission existed; the Final Order's reference to R. 150(2) RoP already made clear the costs award was interim; R. 353 grounds are exhaustive.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Urgency for provisional measures: delay in filing after knowledge of infringement may defeat urgencyConditions for provisional measures are cumulative; lack of urgency alone defeats the applicationBrussels I Regulation amendments govern international jurisdiction only, not internal UPC territorial competence under Art. 33 UPCAArt. 33(1) UPCA lists alternative competences without hierarchical preference between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)Earliest UPC jurisdiction date is the grant date of the European Patent, not the unitary effect registration dateR. 353 RoP rectification grounds are exhaustive: only clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions qualifyA decision must be read as a whole including its reasoning; the substantive operative part and the motivational grounds are equally part of the order

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.