UPC_CoA_813/2025

ATTACHMENT FOR A HAND HELD APPLIANCE

BerufungenHauptberufungCourt of AppealAppealOral Phase

Dieser Fall zitiert

In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
Directive 2004/48 Art.9(1)(a)	interlocutory injunction against intermediary whose services are used to infringe a patent	Bindend	does Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2004/48, or any other provision of Union law, preclude case-law of a national or common court under which an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing or prohibiting infringement of a patent may be granted against that authorised representative?
Regulation 2023/988 (General Product Safety)	authorised representative obligations and intermediary status	Hintergrund	It is common ground that Regulation 2023/988 and Regulation 2019/1020 are applicable to the products of Dreame International at issue in the present proceedings.
Regulation 2019/1020 (Market Surveillance)	authorised representative obligations and intermediary status	Hintergrund	Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products ('Regulation 2019/1020') apply

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
62	provisional measures — no requirement to limit injunction to specific infringing acts	Bindend	The requirement to limit an injunction issued to the specific infringing acts which Dreame International, Teqphone and Dreame Technology had committed cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA
25	scope of patent right / infringing acts	Bindend	cannot be derived from Art. 62(1) and Art. 25(a) UPCA (cf. UPC_CoA_382/2024 APL_39664/2024, order of 14 February 2025, Abbott v Sibio, para. 158)

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
C-494/15	concept of 'intermediary' under Directive 2004/48 — service usable to infringe IP rights	Bindend	CJEU, judgement of 7 July 2016, Tommy Hilfiger v Delta Center, C-494/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:528, para. 23
C-314/12	concept of 'intermediary' — no specific contractual relationship required	Bindend	see also CJEU, judgement of 27 March 2014, UPC Telekabel Wien v Constantin Film, C‑314/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:192, para. 34 and 35

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
UPC_CoA_382/2024	scope of injunction — no requirement to limit to specific previously committed infringing acts	Bindend	cf. UPC_CoA_382/2024 APL_39664/2024, order of 14 February 2025, Abbott v Sibio, para. 158

Zitiert in

Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.

Bisher in keiner anderen Entscheidung unseres Korpus zitiert.