Overview · Filed: Jan 2, 2024
UPC_CoA_2/2024
PROSTHETIC VALVE CRIMPING DEVICE
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
EPC article · 4
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 69 | costs - successful party where defendant gave cease-and-desist undertaking | Binding | Welche Partei die obsiegende Partei im Sinne von Art. 69(1) EPGÜ im Rahmen der Abweisung einer Klage nach Abgabe einer Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung durch den Beklagten ist |
| 69 | exceptional circumstances exception to costs rule | Binding | die Feststellung des Gerichts erster Instanz, dass die Abweisung der Klage gemäß R. 360 VerfO einen außergewöhnlichen Umstand im Sinne von Art. 69(2) EPGÜ darstellt |
| 69 | costs - successful party where defendant gave cease-and-desist undertaking | Binding | Which party is the successful party within the meaning of Art. 69(1) UPCA in the context of a disposal of an action following a cease-and-desist undertaking by the defendant |
| 69 | exceptional circumstances exception to costs rule | Binding | Meril rightly challenges the finding of the Court of First Instance that the disposal of the action pursuant to R. 360 RoP constitutes an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of Art. 69(2) UPCA. |
Rules of Procedure · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 360 | disposal of action | Binding | die Abweisung der Klage gemäß R. 360 VerfO einen außergewöhnlichen Umstand im Sinne von Art. 69(2) EPGÜ darstellt |
| 360 | disposal of action | Binding | The disposal of the action in the present case does not preclude the application of the general rule of Art. 69(1) UPCA |
Court of Justice EU · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art. 47 | right to effective remedy - defendant's right | Persuasive | The interpretation of Art. 69(1) UPCA and Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48 does not conflict with the defendant's right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as guaranteed by Art. 47 of the Charter |
| Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Art. 52(1) | proportionality of limitations on Charter rights | Persuasive | the limitation is necessary to protect the claimant's fundamental right to an effective remedy (Art. 47 and 52(1) of the Charter) |
UPC (CFI) · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_249/2023 | impugned first instance order | Background | Anordnung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, Lokalkammer München, vom 19. Dezember 2023 Aktenzeichen des Gerichts erster Instanz: UPC_CFI_249/2023 |
courtName.other · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directive 2004/48, Art. 14 | costs in IP enforcement proceedings | Binding | The Court of Appeal's interpretation of Art. 69(1) UPCA and Art. 14 of Directive 2004/48 is consistent with this general obligation. |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_APP_35055/2024 Court of Appeal | Jun 19, 2024 | suspensive effect — manifestly wrong order | Binding | Other exceptional circumstances that could justify suspensive effect would be where the impugned order is manifestly wrong (See UPC_CoA_2/2024, order of 18 January 2024). |
| UPC_CFI_59/2025 Munich LD | May 19, 2025 | costs allocation when cease-and-desist given immediately after PI application | Binding | Ihr Fehlen kann aber dazu führen, dass der Antragsteller die Kosten zu tragen hat, wenn der Antragsgegner unmittelbar zu Beginn des Verfahrens eine Unterlassungs- und Verpflichtungserklärung abgibt (Fortführung von CoA, Anordnung vom 24.10.2024, CoA_2-2024, APL_83-2024 – Edwards/Meril). |
| UPC_CoA_8/2025 Court of Appeal | Dec 9, 2025 | costs allocation when no warning letter and immediate cease-and-desist | Binding | An exception to the general rule of Art. 69(1) UPCA may apply if a claimant initiates proceedings without first sending a warning letter and the defendant submits a cease-and-desist undertaking immediately at the beginning of the proceedings...CoA 2/2024, Meril v Edwards, 4 October 2024, para 15 |