Overview · Filed: —
UPC_APP_27159/2024
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealApplication for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e))—
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 6
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.3(b) | security for costs | Binding | lication for security for costs was dismissed, a request by the Appellants to expedite the appeal and shorten any deadlines where possible in accordance with R.9.3(b) RoP is denied for being too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. KEYW |
| 9.3(b) | procedural | Binding | ssible in accordance with R.9.3(b) RoP is denied for being too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. KEYWORDS: Expedition of the appeal, R.225(e), R.9.3(b) RoP APPLICANTS / APPELLANTS / DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CO |
| 158.1 | security for costs | Binding | f First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_515/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 4 March 2024 Texas Instruments filed an application under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP (App. 11732/2024), requesting the Court to order NST to provide adequate secu |
| 9.3(b) | jurisdiction | Binding | incur without receiving adequate security that these costs will later be reimbursed by NST. POINTS AT ISSUE Request for expedition of the appeal, R.225(e), R.9.3(b) RoP GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 1. The request for expedition is admissible. 2. Th |
| 224.2(b) | jurisdiction | Binding | P GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 1. The request for expedition is admissible. 2. There is no need to consult NST about this request. 3. Pursuant to R.235.2 and R.224.2(b) RoP a respondent has 15 days from service of the Statement of grounds of appea |
| 224.2(b) | procedural | Binding | r interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.235.2 and R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interes |
UPC Court of Appeal · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_225/2024 | procedural | Binding | adek, Simmons&Simmons, Munich, Germany LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English PATENT AT ISSUE EP 1 552 399 PANEL Second Panel UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_225/2024 APL_25953/2024 App_27159/2024 2 DECIDING JUDGES: This order has |
| UPC_CoA_25953/2024 | procedural | Background | ons, Munich, Germany LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English PATENT AT ISSUE EP 1 552 399 PANEL Second Panel UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_225/2024 APL_25953/2024 App_27159/2024 2 DECIDING JUDGES: This order has been adopted by |
UPC (CFI) · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_515/2023 | infringement | Binding | 6/2024 and App_11732/2024 in the main infringement action ACT_597693/2023) □ Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_515/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 4 March 2024 Texas Instruments filed an applicati |
courtName.other · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 69.4 | security for costs | Binding | uted by the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich): UPC_CFI_515/2023 SUMMARY OF FACTS On 4 March 2024 Texas Instruments filed an application under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP (App. 11732/2024), requesting the Court to order NST to pr |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.