UPC_CFI_258/2025

LIGHT EMITTING DIODE

RevocationMain Revocation ActionParis CDRevocationOral Phase

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
CJEU C-255/02	abuse of rights / straw company	Persuasive	CJEU 21 February 2006, C-255/02, Halifax and Others, concerning the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
CJEU C-196/04	abuse of rights / straw company	Persuasive	CJEU 12 September 2006, C-196/04, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, concerning the interpretation of Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC
CJEU C-170/13	abuse of dominant position / FRAND	Background	the rights of the holder cannot be exercised abusively, as this could constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU (see, in relation to the refusal to grant access to an indispensable product or service for a given activity, CJEU 16 July 2015, C-170/13, Huawei Technologies
CJEU C-418/01	abuse of dominant position	Background	CJEU 29 April 2004, C-418/01, IMS Health
CJEU C-241/91 P	abuse of dominant position	Background	ECJ 6 April 1995, C-241/91 P, "Magill"

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
33(4)	jurisdiction / same parties preliminary objection	Binding	requesting the Court to dismiss this revocation action as inadmissible under Article 33 (4), Sentence 2, of the Unified Patent Court Agreement ('UPCA')

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
RoP_rule_171	burden of proof	Binding	A party that asserts a company is a "straw company" bears the corresponding burden of proof where this allegation is contested or likely to be contested, in application of the general rule under Rule 171 (1) 'RoP'.

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.