by Daniel X. Thomas
Through discussions on another blog, I have discovered some hard to be believe facts, which put the whole construct of the UPC on an even more shoddy basis.
In various cases, Roku has requested before the UPC-CFI LD Munich and the CoA that the UPC refers a question to the CJEU about the legal status of the UPC.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 395 043 B1 relates to a rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked for non-compliance with Art 123(2).
The proprietor appealed, but the board confirmed the revocation for non-compliance with Art 123(2). Some AR were not admitted by the board.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 611 581 B1 relates to an in industrial controlled and to a method configured to control an industrial activity. It derives from the parent application EP 3 249 481.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD for infringement of Art 76(1), 84 and lack of IS.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 512 713 B1 relates to a value document having a security marking and a method for identifying the security marking.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that claim 4 as granted was to be objected under Art 83. The same applied to AR1-3. AR1a was lacking N over D2=US 2014/0001351,
by Daniel X. Thomas
For the introduction of the case, please refer to the blog entry Roku I.
In the present case, we will discuss the decision of the CoA UPC.
In this decision, the CoA considered the compatibility of the UPC’s jurisdiction with EU law and the replacement of London by Milan.
The decision of the CoA UPC has been taken in a composition of 3 LQJ.