Clarification of “Unreasonable Delay” under Rule 211.4 RoP: The LD Paris clarifies that the relevant…
The “same parties” requirement for exclusive local division jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA means…
Inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) exists if scientific uncertainty at the priority date prevented a…
An intervenor cannot contradict the party they support: The Court confirms that an intervenor must…
Practical guidance on withdrawing an action against a single defendant in a multi-party case: The…
The court ordered the full disclosure of an expert’s inspection report to the patentee because the…
In response to confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent to an application for…
Proper service of application of provisional measures when service via the official route fails: If…
Pursuant to R. 197.1 RoP, the Court may order measures to preserve evidence without the defendant…
Experimental data which are not disclosed in the patent specification are, as a general rule, not…
Realization of technical effects and “inferior embodiments”: When an attacked embodiment realizes…
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter,…
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.: The Court of…
Substantive content of application filed in non-EPO language: If an (international) patent…
The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated…
An application for security for costs may be filed after the summon for oral hearing has been…
Competence of LD Hamburg, Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA: imminent infringement: To establish jurisdiction,…
Inventive step analysis: objective problem, realistic starting points (more than one is possible),…
