UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 1/2024

Jan 4, 2024·EP3883277 Unitary patent · METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING SPATIALLY LOCATED INFORMATION TO A MOBILE TERMINAL

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology · IT methods for management
  • Instruments
    Measurement
Language
German
First decided
May 13, 2024
Last decision
Jul 29, 2024
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Peter BlokLocked
Judge Eric AugardeLocked
Judge Klaus LoibnerLocked

At the UPC: SES-imagotag SA (9 cases)·Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (6 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CoA 285/2025·UPC CFI 84/2025·UPC CoA 618/2024·UPC APP 3393/2024·UPC CFI 360/2023 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2024

Decisions
  • 2024-07-29
    Public

    Summary: The Court of Appeal held that an application for cost assessment following an appeal order must be filed with the Court of First Instance (not the Court of Appeal), even when the costs relate solely to the appeal proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Jurisdiction for cost assessment after appeal
    • Cost assessment procedure
  • 2024-05-13
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: Order of the Court of Appeal (Panel 1, with technical judges) dismissing the appeal by VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) against the Munich Local Division's rejection of its application for provisional measures against Hanshow Technology and related entities regarding electronic shelf labels. The Court of Appeal, applying a balance-of-probabilities standard, found that none of Hanshow's contested products fell within the scope of protection of claim 1 of EP 3 883 277, because the antenna was not positioned more to the front of the label than the printed circuit board as required by the claim. The court held that claim features must always be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole. The appeal was rejected and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs of appeal.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Claim construction: features must be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole
    • Balance of probabilities standard in provisional measures
    • Infringement of electronic shelf label patent
    • Claim feature: antenna positioned more to front than printed circuit board
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-03-25Not public
Final Order2025-03-25Public
Receipt2025-03-12Not public
250311 - Request Hanshow (recording of the hearing) (EP'277 Appeal)2025-03-11Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-02-26Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-02-03Not public
Order on the access to recording2025-02-03Public
Receipt2025-01-28Not public
Request for the recording of the oral hearing to be made available RoP1152025-01-09Not public
Decision-On-Appeal-On-Measures-Outcome2024-10-25Not public
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2024-08-01Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-07-29Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-07-29Not public
Final order2024-07-29Public
Stellungnahme Antragsgegnerin2024-07-11Not public
Comments on Cost Reimbursement and Extension2024-07-11Not public
Comments on Cost Reimbursement and Extension2024-07-11Not public
Comments on Cost Reimbursement and Extension2024-07-11Not public
Comments on Cost Reimbursement and Extension2024-07-11Not public
Preliminary order2024-06-27Not public
Receipt2024-06-24Not public
Additional Submission regarding Application for Determination of Costs and Request for Extension2024-06-24Not public
Receipt2024-06-19Not public
Application for Determination of Costs, Request for Extension2024-06-18Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-05-17Not public
Anordnung2024-05-13Public
Hearing Reference2024-04-03Not public
Hearing Reference2024-04-03Not public
Receipt2024-03-26Not public
FIN 3a2024-03-25Not public
FIN 37a2024-03-25Not public
FIN 352024-03-25Not public
FIN 382024-03-25Not public
Application2024-03-25Not public
FIN 392024-03-25Not public
FIN 362024-03-25Not public
FIN 35a2024-03-25Not public
FIN 39a2024-03-25Not public
FIN 372024-03-25Not public
FIN 36a2024-03-25Not public
interimProcedureClosure2024-02-18Not public
summons2024-02-18Not public
Final order2024-02-18Public
Final order2024-02-13Public
Response_Hanshow2024-02-09Not public
Response_Hanshow2024-02-09Not public
Response_Hanshow2024-02-09Not public
Response_Hanshow2024-02-09Not public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642024-02-07Not public
Preliminary order2024-02-05Not public
interimConferenceDecisionAppeal2024-02-05Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-23Not public
Berufungserwiderung2024-01-23Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-23Not public
Berufungserwiderung2024-01-23Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-23Not public
Berufungserwiderung2024-01-23Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-23Not public
Berufungserwiderung2024-01-23Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-01-11Not public
Notification Of Service2024-01-11Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-01-11Not public
Notification Of Service2024-01-11Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-01-11Not public
Notification Of Service2024-01-11Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-01-11Not public
Notification Of Service2024-01-11Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-09Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-01-08Not public
Receipt2024-01-08Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-01-08Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-01-04Not public
FIN 332024-01-04Not public
Appeal pleading2024-01-04Not public
FIN 34a2024-01-04Not public
FIN 342024-01-04Not public