UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 412/2023

Nov 7, 2023·EP2796333 · Speed detection system and compliance monitoring

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Control
  • Mechanical engineering
    Transport
Language
English
First decided
Feb 9, 2024
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked

At the UPC: Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (7 cases)·ITCiCo Spain S.L. (7 cases)

Decisions
  • 2025-03-31

    Summary: Paris Central Division rejected BMW's application to rectify an order of 9 January 2025 to add a costs provision relating to an application to set aside a default judgment. The court held that the failure to address costs in the operative part could not be corrected under Rule 353 RoP (rectification of obvious slips) because costs for the set-aside application are not a separate decision on the merits but ancillary to the main default proceedings, and any costs claim must be pursued in the separate costs determination procedure.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Rectification of decisions under Rule 353 RoP
    • Costs of set-aside proceedings vs costs of main default proceedings
    • Scope of obvious slip correction
  • 2025-01-09

    Summary: The Paris Central Division (Seat) ruled on an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision (R. 356 RoP) issued on 16 September 2024 against it in the revocation action of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG concerning EP 2 796 333. The court interpreted R. 356(2) RoP to require that the applicant demonstrate inability to comply due to reasons beyond its control (unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure). The application was considered on its merits.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Setting aside default decision (R. 356 RoP)
    • Force majeure / unforeseeable circumstances
    • Explanation of default requirement
Document titleDatePublic
Case Closure Formal Check2025-09-18Not public
Decision by default2025-09-18Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-04-02Not public
rule 3532025-04-02Public
preliminary order2025-02-24Not public
preliminary order2025-02-24Not public
preliminary order2025-02-24Not public
Receipt2025-01-24Not public
Receipt2025-01-24Not public
Request for rectification2025-01-24Not public