SONN Patentanwälte – IP Attorneys

  1. UPC Court of Appeal: Assessing sufficient disclosure

    Sufficiency of Disclosure under Art 138 Abs 1 lit i.c.w. Art 83 EPC has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole, thus on the basis of the claims, description and drawings, from the perspective of the skilled person with his common general knowledge at the filing or priority date. The...

  2. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: Withdrawal of the Appeal and Mootness of the Intervener's Appeal

    The defendant and its intervener had lodged an appeal. The plaintiff declared the withdrawal of the appeal due to an out-of-court settlement in which the intervener was not involved. The intervener agreed to the withdrawal of the appeal only on the condition that its own appeal would be heard and...

  3. UPC Court of Appeal: The Role of dependent claims when interpreting an independent claim

    The question of whether conclusions can be drawn from the subject matter of a dependent claim and its features when interpreting the main claim depends on the circumstances of the individual case. If the dependent claim is only adding an additional feature that does not provide a more specific description...

  4. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: Public Access to the Register

    The applicant requested access to pleadings and evidence from a concluded case in order to publish these documents on a subscription-based platform and thus promote the transparency of patent proceedings. The request is rejected as a purely commercial interest does not constitute a legitimate interest...

  5. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: (No) New Grounds for Revocation in Case of Patent Amendments

    If an application to amend the patent is filed, the plaintiff must file a reply to the application to amend (R 43.3 RoP). Where appropriate in view of the proposed amendments, the reply may contain alternative arguments on non-infringement (R 32.2 RoP). However, the reply to the application to amend...

  6. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: Urgency of a Preliminary Injunction

    The plaintiff applied for a preliminary injunction approximately 4 months after the patent was granted. The plaintiff had known about the defendant's infringing products for some time, partly due to a parallel US proceeding. The plaintiff argued that it had anticipated a possible short-term technical...

  7. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: Decisions on Costs in Preliminary Injunction Proceedings

    Following the dismissal of the application for a preliminary injunction, the Brussels Local Division ordered the plaintiff to pay EUR 112,000 to the defendant as reimbursement of costs. A provisional costs award can also be ordered in favor of the defendant in preliminary injunction proceedings....

  8. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: Confidentiality of Information

    The plaintiff filed two actions in April 2025 against the defendant for patent infringement in the field of 4G+ technologies and simultaneously applied for the protection of confidential information, in particular license agreements. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant's employees from...

  9. UPC-Court of First Instance: Procedural decision on inspection and preservation of evidence

    The applicant requests an order for an inspection and preservation of evidence at the respondent’s exhibition booth during the EMO Hannover 2025 trade fair. Based on brochures, videos, technical drawings, and an expert report regarding comparable machines, the applicant has plausibly demonstrated...

  10. UPC Court of Appeal: Procedural Decision: Protection of Confidentiality

    The appellant filed a new piece of evidence in the appeal proceedings as "highly confidential" (HC). The appellant requested confidential treatment from the public pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP, but did not file an accompanying application under R. 262A RoP to restrict access for the opposing party. Only...

Next page
Top