UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 8/2026

19. Jan. 2026·EP3327608 +1 more: SECURITY MODULE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AND MONITORING THE DATA TRAFFIC OF A PERSONAL COMPUTER

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Allgemein
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Jan Gigerich (IPCGS Gigerich Sedlmaier)
Beklagte
Vertreter: António Campinos (EPO (President))
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
Computing & AI
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
9. Feb. 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-02-09
    AbgewiesenBerufung (EPA-Entscheidung)Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97)

    German-language decision of the Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Simonsson) dismissing Papst Licensing's appeal against the Paris Central Division decision (UPC_CFI_1771/2025). The CoA confirmed that Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a patent that does not designate all participating member states (Malta was not designated). Papst's requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU were rejected as unnecessary. Each party bears its own costs per Art. 66(2) UPCA.

    Rechtsfragen:Unitary effect registration (Art. 3(1) Reg. 1257/2012)Designation of all participating member states requiredNo interpretation contra legemCJEU preliminary reference (Art. 267 TFEU)
  • 2026-02-09
    AbgewiesenBerufung (EPA-Entscheidung)Action against the decision of the EPO (RoP97)

    English-language decision of the Court of Appeal (Standing Judge Simonsson) dismissing Papst Licensing's appeal against the CFI decision (UPC_CFI_1771/2025) refusing to annul the EPO's rejection of Papst's application for unitary effect of EP 3 327 608. The headnote confirms that Art. 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow unitary effect registration for a patent not designating all participating member states. CJEU reference refused. Each party bears its own costs.

    Rechtsfragen:Unitary effect registration (Art. 3(1) Reg. 1257/2012)Designation requirement for unitary effectCJEU preliminary reference refused
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-02-09Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-02-09Öffentlich
Note2026-01-23Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-01-22Nicht öffentlich
Note2026-01-22Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-01-22Nicht öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-20Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-01-20Öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
Other document Claimant2026-01-19Nicht öffentlich
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v European Patent Office — UPC CoA 8/2026 | UPClytics