SONN Patentanwälte – IP Attorneys

  1. UPC Central Division: Maximum number of Invalidity

    The party challenging the party had raised over 50 grounds for invalidity (12 based on claims exceeding the scope of the disclosure; 3 based on lack of novelty; 1 based on lack of industrial applicability; and 6 different grounds for 30 claims based on lack of inventive step). The court instructed...

  2. UPC: Granting of an Injunction Extending Beyond Specific Infringing Acts

    The Court of Appeal clarifies the scope of an injunction and the reach of preventive measures. There is no obligation to limit an injunction to the specific acts of infringement actually committed; such a limitation can be derived neither from Article 62(1) nor from Article 25(a) of the Unified Patent...

  3. UPC Local Division: Interpretation of the “same invention”

    The term “the same invention” in Article 87 EPC is to be interpreted such that a claimed invention is to be regarded as the same invention as the invention in an earlier application if a person skilled in the art can derive the subject matter of the claim directly and unambiguously from the earlier...

  4. UPC Central Division: Retrospective evaluation of inventive step

    When assessing the inventive step under Art 56 EPC from a legal perspective, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed with knowledge of the invention, i.e. retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied upon. Also in such...

  5. UPC: Consideration of Litigation Cost Insurance in Security for Costs

    The Court of Appeal addresses the criteria for ordering security for costs and the role of corresponding insurance coverage. In exercising its discretion, the Court must examine, taking into account the facts and arguments presented by the parties, whether the financial situation of the plaintiff...

  6. UPC Court of Appeal: Competent division

    For reasons of efficiency and in view of the urgency of an application for interim measures, R. 19.5 RoP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A referral to the competent division is therefore also possible in such proceedings (R. 19.5 RoP). If the division seised...

  7. UPC: Requirements for the Judicial Ordering of Decision Publication

    In this decision, the Court of Appeal clarifies the requirements under which the publication of a judgment can be ordered at the infringer's expense. An order for the publication of a decision requires, in addition to the finding of a patent infringement, the establishment of a legitimate interest...

  8. UPC: Identical Claims for All Participating Member States Required for Unitary Effect

    In this key ruling, the Court of Appeal addresses the strict territorial requirements for registering the unitary effect of a European patent. Article 3(1) of the Unitary Patent Regulation cannot be interpreted as permitting the registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does...

  9. UPC Central Division: Procedural Decision: Penalty Payment, Enforcement, Retroactive Effect

    The court of first instance has jurisdiction to impose penalty payments for infringements of an order of the Court of Appeal (here: preliminary measure). An order of the Court of Appeal which sets a ceiling for the penalty payment ("up to EUR 250,000 for each infringement") is sufficiently specific...

  10. UPC: First referral to the CJEU on the jurisdiction and liability of authorised representatives

    In this landmark request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court is dealing for the first time with fundamental questions concerning the jurisdiction and liability of authorised representatives under the Product Safety Regulation. The Court of Appeal referred questions...

Previous page Next page
Top