UPC_CFI_582/2024

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAKING FUNCTIONAL DEVICES AVAILALBLE TO PARTICIPANTS OF MEETINGS

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresBrussels LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
19.1	jurisdiction — time-limit for objection not applicable to provisional measures	Binding	R. 19(1) RoP, and its mentioned time-limit, is not applicable to objections to applications for provisional measures.
118.5	costs — interim costs award	Binding	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP; Rule 211(1)(d) RoP
353	rectification — exhaustive grounds: clerical errors, miscalculations, obvious omissions	Binding	The circumstances listed in R. 353 RoP for rectification of a decision or order are exhaustive in nature. Rectification may be requested for (i) clerical errors, (ii) miscalculations, and (iii) obvious omissions.
118.5	costs — interim costs award	Binding	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP
211.1	costs — interim award of costs in provisional measures	Binding	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP; Rule 211(1)(d) RoP

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
33(1)	jurisdiction — alternative competences not structured as general rule/exception unlike Brussels I	Binding	Art. 33(1) UPCA does not follow the same structure [...] as to be found in the Brussels I Recast Regulation in the sense of a general rule and an exception to that rule.
3(c)	jurisdiction — earliest date to file UPC action is date of grant, not registration of unitary effect	Binding	Since the UPC has substantive jurisdiction to hear infringement actions or provisional measures for European patents (Art. 3(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 32(1)(a) or (c) UPCA), the date of grant of the European Patent should be considered as the objective earliest date.
32(1)(a)	jurisdiction — infringement actions	Binding	Art. 3(c) UPCA in conjunction with Art. 32(1)(a) or (c) UPCA
69(1)	costs — unsuccessful party bears costs	Binding	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP; Rule 211(1)(d) RoP
69(1)	costs — unsuccessful party bears costs	Binding	Art. 69(1) UPCA; R. 118(5) and R. 150(2) RoP

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast	jurisdiction — CJEU case law on Brussels I not directly applicable to UPC territorial competence	Distinguished	The case law of the CJEU regarding the (international) jurisdiction of a court of a EU Member State, and in particular its interpretation of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation [...] is not one-to-one applicable with regard to the (territorial) competence of a division of the UPC.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CFI_463/2023	urgency — delay of 2.5 months considered unacceptable under strict UPC case law	Persuasive	If such a delay could already be considered unacceptable under an urgency assessment based on (strict) UPC case law (see LD Düsseldorf, 31 October 2024, UPC-CFI_463/2023, ACT-590953/2023)

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.