UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 692/2025

30. Juli 2025·EP2642632 · Wireless power receiver and method of manufacturing the same

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Zurückgenommen)
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Division
Court of Appeal
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy · Digital communication
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
30. Juni 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
3. Aug. 2026
Im Vergleich
Wie lange das Gericht bis zu einer ersten Entscheidung braucht.
Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC124
Richter Ulrike VoßGesperrt
Richter Bart van den BroekGesperrt
Richter Nathalie SabotierGesperrt
Richter Eric AugardeGesperrt
Richter Dennis KretschmannGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Nera Innovations Ltd. (7 Verfahren)·Xiaomi Group (92 Verfahren)

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-08-03

    Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal allowed both cross-appeals against the Hamburg Local Division's judgment of 10 July 2025 to be withdrawn under R. 265 RoP after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and declared the proceedings terminated. No cost decision was required because neither party made a cost application.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • withdrawal of an appeal (R. 265 RoP)
    • consent of the respondent to withdrawal
    • no cost decision where neither party applies for one (R. 265.2(c) RoP)
  • 2026-06-30

    Zusammenfassung: In the cross-appeals against the Hamburg Local Division decision of 10 July 2025 concerning EP 2 642 632, the Court of Appeal disregarded Xiaomi's exhibits FBD-T38 and FBD-T39 and its inventive-step arguments based on D1, D2 and D4 against auxiliary requests 2, 7A, 10A, 11A and 12A. Xiaomi gave no reason why the expert evidence was not filed at first instance, contrary to the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and Art. 73(4) UPCA with R. 222.2 RoP, and claim construction is a question of law for the Court rather than for an expert; the inventive-step line based on Xiaomi's own claim construction was a new argument it had deliberately withheld at first instance.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
    • admissibility on appeal of new documents and arguments under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP
    • front-loaded character of UPC proceedings requires timely filing of private expert evidence
    • claim construction is a question of law for the Court, not for an expert (Insulet v EOFlow)
    • a new inventive-step line based on a party's own claim construction is a new argument, not a relabelling of the same case
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-08-03Nicht öffentlich
Veröffentlichung der Entscheidung2026-08-03Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-08-03Nicht öffentlich
Decision2026-08-03Öffentlich
Receipt2026-07-31Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-07-31Nicht öffentlich
Application Appellant2026-07-31Nicht öffentlich
Anordnung2026-07-13Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-07-13Öffentlich
Order2026-07-13Nicht öffentlich