Overview · Filed: —
ACT_17434/2024
JUICE EXTRACTION MODULE FOR JUICER
InfringementMain Infringement ActionParis LDInfringement Action—
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
courtName.other · 7
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34 | claim amendment | Binding | sarily an essential part of the invention. Consequently, the amended claims do not comprise added matter. 2) Concerning the argument that an objection based on Art. 34 UPCA falls in the scope of R. 19 RoP: the Court considers that the issue in disput |
| 31 | jurisdiction | Binding | nd competence of the UPC, the competence of a division and the lan- guage of the Statement of claim. Under R.19 RoP, the international jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 31 UPCA), the substantive jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 32 UPCA) and the territ |
| 32 | jurisdiction | Binding | the lan- guage of the Statement of claim. Under R.19 RoP, the international jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 31 UPCA), the substantive jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 32 UPCA) and the territorial jurisdiction amongst divisions (Article 33 UPCA) may |
| 33 | jurisdiction | Binding | tional jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 31 UPCA), the substantive jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 32 UPCA) and the territorial jurisdiction amongst divisions (Article 33 UPCA) may be challenged. A distinction must be made between, on the one hand, t |
| 34 | jurisdiction | Binding | n the one hand, the jurisdiction of the UPC (Arti- cles 31, 32 and 33 UPCA) and, on the other hand, the territorial scope of the UPC’s decisions, as defined in Article 34 UPCA related to "Territorial scope of decisions". In other words, Article 34 UP |
| 34 | procedural | Binding | nd, on the other hand, the territorial scope of the UPC’s decisions, as defined in Article 34 UPCA related to "Territorial scope of decisions". In other words, Article 34 UPCA “relates to the scope of the effect of the decisions” (UPC_CFI_159/2024, L |
| 65(2) | jurisdiction | Binding | 55 936, as unconditionally amended in the Main Request, as well as claims 1 to 3 as amended in the Auxiliary request, in accordance with Article 138(1) EPC and Article 65(2) UPCA, as requested by the Defendants. 140. The Court considers that HUROM’s |
UPC (CFI) · 5
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_163/2024 | procedural | Binding | [FIRST PAGES] 1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_163/2024 Decision on the merits of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/05/2025 HEADNOTES: 1) Concerning the discussion on the admiss |
| UPC_CFI_159/2024 | jurisdiction | Binding | defined in Article 34 UPCA related to "Territorial scope of decisions". In other words, Article 34 UPCA “relates to the scope of the effect of the decisions” (UPC_CFI_159/2024, LD Mannheim, Decision 11 March 2025, §107). The territorial scope of a UP |
| UPC_CFI_355/2023 | jurisdiction | Binding | lectrolux, as has already 2 been stated by several divisions of the UPC concerning non-Contracting Member States (concerning either EU States or third States, UPC_CFI_355/2023, LD Düsseldorf, 28 January 2025; UPC_CFI 702/2024, LD Paris, 21 March, 20 |
| UPC_CFI_702/2024 | jurisdiction | Binding | l divisions of the UPC concerning non-Contracting Member States (concerning either EU States or third States, UPC_CFI_355/2023, LD Düsseldorf, 28 January 2025; UPC_CFI 702/2024, LD Paris, 21 March, 2025; UPC_CFI 792/2024, Milan LD, 15 April, 2025: al |
| UPC_CFI_792/2024 | jurisdiction | Binding | cting Member States (concerning either EU States or third States, UPC_CFI_355/2023, LD Düsseldorf, 28 January 2025; UPC_CFI 702/2024, LD Paris, 21 March, 2025; UPC_CFI 792/2024, Milan LD, 15 April, 2025: all decisions on long-arm jurisdiction). Howev |
Rules of Procedure · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | claim amendment | Binding | ention. Consequently, the amended claims do not comprise added matter. 2) Concerning the argument that an objection based on Art. 34 UPCA falls in the scope of R. 19 RoP: the Court considers that the issue in dispute is the territorial scope of the U |
| 19 | jurisdiction | Binding | A falls in the scope of R. 19 RoP: the Court considers that the issue in dispute is the territorial scope of the UPC's decisions. A preliminary objection under R. 19 RoP is limited to three matters: the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, the com |
| 171.1 | jurisdiction | Binding | l decisions on long-arm jurisdiction). However, on the mer- its, the Claimant bears the burden of proof for the alleged facts in accordance with R. 13m RoP and R. 171.1 RoP. In the case at hand, no factual element has been introduced into the proceed |
EPC article · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 138(1) | infringement | Binding | European patent EP 3 155 936, as unconditionally amended in the Main Request, as well as claims 1 to 3 as amended in the Auxiliary request, in accordance with Article 138(1) EPC and Article 65(2) UPCA, as requested by the Defendants. 140. The Court c |
Court of Justice EU · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22) | jurisdiction | Binding | ide CMS: the patent owner’s claim concerning alleged acts of infringement on Polish territory is admissible in light of the decision handed down by the CJEU in BSH v Electrolux, as has already 2 been stated by several divisions of the UPC concerning |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.