UPC CoA 618/2024
Oct 31, 2024·EP3883277 Unitary patent · METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING SPATIALLY LOCATED INFORMATION TO A MOBILE TERMINAL
- Case details
- StatusCase Closed (Claim dismissed)ActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- Hanshow France SASOperating co.
- Hanshow Technology Co. LtdOperating co.
- Hanshow Germany GmbHOperating co.
- Hanshow Netherlands B.V.Operating co.
Representatives- Roland Küppers-Taylor Wessing
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringAudio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology · IT methods for management
- InstrumentsMeasurement
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Feb 21, 2025
- Last decision
- Jun 6, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- Hanshow Germany GmbHAdmissible2023-10-19
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
At the UPC: Hanshow France SAS (6 cases)·SES-imagotag SA (9 cases)
This dispute contains 6 other proceedings
UPC CoA 285/2025·UPC CFI 84/2025·UPC APP 3393/2024·UPC CoA 1/2024·UPC CFI 360/2023 and 1 more
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2024
- 2025-06-06Appeal RoP220.2Public
Summary: The Court of Appeal ruled on a late application for a costs determination (R. 151 RoP) filed by the Hanshow entities (appellants/applicants at first instance in a costs procedure) arising from failed provisional measures proceedings against SES-imagotag SA. The CoA held that the one-month deadline under R. 151.1 RoP begins from service of the provisional measures order (not the merits decision) when no merits proceedings are initiated, and that a missed deadline can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). A party that succeeds in costs proceedings must still bear its own costs attributable to those proceedings (except the court fee).
Show the legal issues (4)
- Late application for costs determination (R. 151 RoP)
- Time limit for costs application after provisional measures
- Re-establishment of rights (R. 320 RoP)
- Costs of the costs proceedings themselves
- 2025-02-21
Summary: The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding court fees for an appeal concerning a cost-fixing application, including a request for default judgment and a request for leave to appeal a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. The order concerned the admissibility of a cost-fixing appeal following earlier proceedings in which the Munich Local Division had denied VusionGroup's preliminary injunction request and ordered costs.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Court fees for appeal of cost-fixing decision
- Leave to appeal a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP
- Request for default judgment
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated | 2025-06-12 | Not public |
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2025-06-06 | Not public |
| Decision-On-Appeal-On-Measures-Outcome | 2025-06-06 | Not public |
| Entscheidung | 2025-06-06 | Public |
| Hearing Reference | 2025-03-21 | Not public |
| Hearing Reference | 2025-03-21 | Not public |
| Panel-Appointment | 2025-03-14 | Not public |
| Interim-Procedure-Closure | 2025-03-11 | Not public |
| Anordnung | 2025-03-11 | Public |
| Summon-Oral-Hearing | 2025-03-11 | Not public |