Übersicht · Eingereicht: —
UPC_CoA_376/2025
BerufungenHauptberufungCourt of AppealAppeal 237—
Dieser Fall zitiert
In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.
Verfahrensordnung · 9
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| 206 | urgency | Bindend | PAGES] 1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 28 November 2025 concerning an Application for provisional measures (R. 206 RoP) HEADNOTES: 1. For reasons of efficiency (see RoP preamble 4) and in view |
| 19.5 | urgency | Bindend | l measures (R. 206 RoP) HEADNOTES: 1. For reasons of efficiency (see RoP preamble 4) and in view of the urgency of an application for interim measures, R. 19.5 RoP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A refer |
| 19.5 | jurisdiction | Bindend | oP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A referral to the competent division is therefore also possible in such proceedings (R. 19.5 RoP). 2. If the division seised considers that a defence raised on the compete |
| 211.4 | urgency | Bindend | PC_CoA_376/2025 APL_19989/2025 (cross-appeal) 2 7. As a rule, potential changes of products on the market do not justify a delay within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP. 8. An interim award of costs may also be ordered in favour of the defend |
| 353 | procedural | Bindend | on dismissed the application for rectification on 8 May 2025, writing: “Rectification regarding the awarded amount is not deemed necessary in application of R. 353 RoP as in its reasoning the Court held that the legal costs are to be awarded for |
| 150 (2) | inventive step | Bindend | O, as its application was dismissed and therefore is to be considered the “unsuccessful party”, should bear these costs. Further, based on its reference to R. 150 (2) RoP (relating to an “interim award” of costs), the Court finds that its Final |
| 353 | inventive step | Bindend | any "clerical errors", "miscalculations" and/or "obvious slips" and as such does not require rectification and, therefore, dismisses the application based on R. 353 RoP also for this reason. Additionally, and regarding the notion “interim award” |
| 211.1(d) | procedural | Bindend | went against Yealink. 96. An interim award of costs may also be ordered in favour of the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures. The fact that R. 211.1(d) RoP, unlike R. 150.2 RoP, does not expressly provide for interim award of cost |
| 150.2 | procedural | Bindend | 96. An interim award of costs may also be ordered in favour of the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures. The fact that R. 211.1(d) RoP, unlike R. 150.2 RoP, does not expressly provide for interim award of costs to the successful party |
UPC-Berufungsgericht · 4
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_317/2025 | procedural | Bindend | operly anticipate the outcome. Rather, the Court will take a cursory look at the parties' allegations and evidence as provided, if any. UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_317/2025 APL_16185/2025 (appeal) UPC_CoA_376/2025 APL_19989/2025 (cross-appeal |
| UPC_CoA_376/2025 | procedural | Bindend | ourt will take a cursory look at the parties' allegations and evidence as provided, if any. UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_317/2025 APL_16185/2025 (appeal) UPC_CoA_376/2025 APL_19989/2025 (cross-appeal) 2 7. As a rule, potential changes o |
| UPC_CoA_16185/2025 | procedural | Hintergrund | the outcome. Rather, the Court will take a cursory look at the parties' allegations and evidence as provided, if any. UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_317/2025 APL_16185/2025 (appeal) UPC_CoA_376/2025 APL_19989/2025 (cross-appeal) 2 7. As a |
| UPC_CoA_19989/2025 | procedural | Hintergrund | cursory look at the parties' allegations and evidence as provided, if any. UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_317/2025 APL_16185/2025 (appeal) UPC_CoA_376/2025 APL_19989/2025 (cross-appeal) 2 7. As a rule, potential changes of products on the |
courtName.other · 2
| Quelle | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | jurisdiction | Bindend | r division that is competent, it shall refer the Application to that division. 3. Competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance, regulated in Art. 33 UPCA, is a UPC internal matter. Internal competence is not governed by the Brusse |
| Brussels I Recast Regulation | jurisdiction | Bindend | 3. Competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance, regulated in Art. 33 UPCA, is a UPC internal matter. Internal competence is not governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation. 4. For the purpose of establishing the competence of a |
Zitiert in
Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.
| Zitiert in | Datum | Rechtsfrage | Bindungskraft | Auszug |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_376/2025 Court of Appeal | 28. Nov. 2025 | procedural | Bindend | ourt will take a cursory look at the parties' allegations and evidence as provided, if any. UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_317/2025 APL_16185/2025 (appeal) UPC_CoA_376/2025 APL_19989/2025 (cross-appeal) 2 7. As a rule, potential changes o |