UPC_CoA_937/2025

MODULAR POINT-OF-CARE DEVICES AND USES THEREOF

BerufungenHauptberufungCourt of AppealAppealWritten Phase

Dieser Fall zitiert

In den Entscheidungen dieses Falls zitierte Quellen.

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
UPC_CoA_22/2024	jurisdiction	Bindend	the interests of harmonisation in general do not require a stay by the UPC where it can be expected that the UPC will issue its decision first (UPC_CoA_22/2024, 28 May 2024, Carrier v BITZER, paragraph 25)
UPC_CoA_5/2025	jurisdiction	Bindend	must be interpreted, inter alia, in the light of the relevant circumstances of the case (UPC_CoA_5/2025, 30 April 2025, Juul v NJOY, paragraph 5)
UPC_CoA_511/2024	jurisdiction	Bindend	The Court may stay proceedings under Art. 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP where it can be expected that the OD of the EPO will give its decision rapidly (UPC_CoA_511/2024, 21 November 2024, Meril v Edwards, paragraphs 19-21)
UPC_CoA_511/2024	jurisdiction	Bindend	the fact that the expected EPO decision is not a final decision and is likely to be appealed is one of several factors (UPC_CoA_511/2024, 21 November 2024, Meril v Edwards, paragraph 22)

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
295(a)	jurisdiction	Bindend	regarding an application to stay proceedings (R. 295(a) RoP) and a request for extension of a time period (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
9.3(a)	urgency	Bindend	a request for extension of a time period (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
220.5	jurisdiction	Bindend	other, more efficient means can be used to align the revocation and infringement proceedings, such as hearing the appeals together pursuant to R. 220.5 RoP

Quelle	Rechtsfrage	Bindungskraft	Auszug
Article 33(10) UPCA	jurisdiction	Bindend	Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies

Zitiert in

Spätere UPC-Entscheidungen, die diesen Fall zitieren.

Bisher in keiner anderen Entscheidung unseres Korpus zitiert.