UPC_CFI_582/2024

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING FUNCTIONAL DEVICES AVAILALBLE TO PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenBrussels LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Dieser Fall zitiert

In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
19.1	jurisdiction — time-limit for objection not applicable to provisional measures	Bindend	R. 19(1) RoP, and its mentioned time-limit, is not applicable to objections to applications for provisional measures.
118.5	costs — interim costs award	Bindend	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP; Rule 211(1)(d) RoP
353	rectification — exhaustive grounds: clerical errors, miscalculations, obvious omissions	Bindend	The circumstances listed in R. 353 RoP for rectification of a decision or order are exhaustive in nature. Rectification may be requested for (i) clerical errors, (ii) miscalculations, and (iii) obvious omissions.
118.5	costs — interim costs award	Bindend	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP
211.1	costs — interim award of costs in provisional measures	Bindend	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP; Rule 211(1)(d) RoP

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
33(1)	jurisdiction — alternative competences not structured as general rule/exception unlike Brussels I	Bindend	Art. 33(1) UPCA does not follow the same structure [...] as to be found in the Brussels I Recast Regulation in the sense of a general rule and an exception to that rule.
3(c)	jurisdiction — earliest date to file UPC action is date of grant, not registration of unitary effect	Bindend	Since the UPC has substantive jurisdiction to hear infringement actions or provisional measures for European patents (Art. 3(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 32(1)(a) or (c) UPCA), the date of grant of the European Patent should be considered as the objective earliest date.
32(1)(a)	jurisdiction — infringement actions	Bindend	Art. 3(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 32(1)(a) or (c) UPCA
69(1)	costs — unsuccessful party bears costs	Bindend	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP; Rule 211(1)(d) RoP
69(1)	costs — unsuccessful party bears costs	Bindend	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast	jurisdiction — CJEU case law on Brussels I not directly applicable to UPC territorial competence	Abgegrenzt	The case law of the CJEU regarding the (international) jurisdiction of a court of a EU Member State, and in particular its interpretation of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation [...] is not one-to-one applicable with regard to the (territorial) competence of a division of the UPC.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
UPC_CFI_463/2023	urgency — delay of 2.5 months considered unacceptable under strict UPC case law	Überzeugend	If such a delay could already be considered unacceptable under an urgency assessment based on (strict) UPC case law (see LD Düsseldorf, 31 October 2024, UPC-CFI_463/2023, ACT-590953/2023)

Zitiert in

Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.

Bisher in keiner anderen Entscheidung unseres Korpus zitiert.