UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 618/2024

Oct 31, 2024·EP3883277 Unitary patent · METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING SPATIALLY LOCATED INFORMATION TO A MOBILE TERMINAL

Case details
Status
Case Closed (Claim dismissed)
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Audio-visual technology · Digital communication · Computer technology · IT methods for management
  • Instruments
    Measurement
Language
German
First decided
Feb 21, 2025
Last decision
Jun 6, 2025
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ingeborg SimonssonLocked

At the UPC: Hanshow France SAS (6 cases)·SES-imagotag SA (9 cases)

Decisions
  • 2025-06-06
    Appeal 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 titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keyword-Translated2025-06-12Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-06-06Not public
Decision-On-Appeal-On-Measures-Outcome2025-06-06Not public
Entscheidung2025-06-06Public
Hearing Reference2025-03-21Not public
Hearing Reference2025-03-21Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-03-14Not public
Interim-Procedure-Closure2025-03-11Not public
Anordnung2025-03-11Public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-03-11Not public