UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 59/2025

23. Jan. 2025·EP2903267 SEP +1 more · IMAGE ENCODING METHOD, IMAGE DECODING METHOD, IMAGE ENCODING DEVICE, IMAGE DECODING DEVICE, AND IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING DEVICE

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Patente
Division
Munich LD
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
19. Mai 2025
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
Munich LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Daniel VossGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Edger BrinkmanGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Sun Patent Trust (31 Verfahren)·Roku, Inc. (16 Verfahren)

Verwandte Verfahren

Dieser Streit umfasst 6 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 708/2024·UPC CFI 713/2024·UPC CFI 339/2024·UPC CFI 254/2024·UPC APP 47531/2024 und 1 weitere

2 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 1528/2026·UPC CFI 538/2025

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

Weitere Verfahren: Munich LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-05-19
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division found the application for provisional measures by Sun Patent Trust (anti-anti-suit injunction / anti-anti-enforcement injunction against Roku) moot because Roku had already issued a cease-and-desist undertaking after the prior interim order of 28 January 2025; the application was rejected but costs were borne by Roku since it had given cause for the proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • Anti-anti-suit / anti-anti-enforcement injunction
    • Mootness of PI application after cease-and-desist undertaking
    • Prior warning requirement (Abmahnung)
    • Cost allocation under R. 360 RoP
  • —

    Zusammenfassung: The Munich Local Division ruled that the anti-anti-suit injunction application by Dolby International against Roku became moot after Roku voluntarily withdrew its US proceedings, declaring the application for provisional measures groundless and the earlier interim order void, with costs awarded against Roku.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Anti-anti-suit injunction mootness
    • Costs after voluntary withdrawal by opponent
    • Prior notice requirement for AASI
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Mitteilung2026-08-24Nicht öffentlich
Acknowledgement-of-change-of-a-representative2025-09-15Nicht öffentlich
Application-RoP293-Receipt2025-09-15Nicht öffentlich
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-09-15Nicht öffentlich
Application-RoP2932025-09-11Nicht öffentlich
Antrag auf Änderung2025-09-11Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-05-26Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem. R. 360 VerfO - anonymised2025-05-23Nicht öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-05-19Nicht öffentlich
2025-05-19 - Anordnung gem R.360 VerfO2025-05-19Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Sun Patent Trust (applicant for AASI/AAEI) obtained a costs order against Roku Inc. before the Munich Local Division, even though the substantive anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunction application had become moot after Roku issued a cease-and-desist undertaking following the prior interim order of January 2025. The Court held that a prior warning was unnecessary and impracticable before filing an AASI/AAEI where the defendant had already initiated US court proceedings seeking to restrain UPC enforcement, and that costs are assessed from the objective viewpoint of the applicant at the time of filing.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • Prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for an anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunction application where the defendant had already initiated foreign anti-suit/anti-enforcement proceedings

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: CoA order of 24 October 2024 (CoA_2-2024, Edwards/Meril); R. 206 RoP

    Hinweis: Court held that where defendant has already commenced anti-suit/AEI proceedings before a foreign court, a prior warning is unnecessary because the defendant's conduct makes clear it would not comply voluntarily.

  • Defendant bears costs despite mootness where defendant gave cause for proceedings by initiating anti-suit action before US courts

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 360 RoP

    Hinweis: Court assessed costs from objective viewpoint of applicant at time of filing: applicant was entitled to conclude it could not obtain its rights without judicial assistance, given defendant's US court filings seeking an ASI/AEI.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • Applicant should bear its own costs because it failed to issue a prior warning before filing the anti-anti-suit/anti-anti-enforcement injunction

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: CoA order of 24 October 2024 (CoA_2-2024, Edwards/Meril)

    Begründung: Prior warning was not required or practicable: (1) defendant had already begun implementing its intent to obtain an ASI/AEI in the US; (2) issuing a warning risked defendant accelerating the US proceedings or obtaining an emergency injunction before the UPC could act, potentially destroying applicant's rights; (3) on this basis, prior warning was deemed untunlich (impracticable/inadvisable).