Main Details: Case number UPC_CFI_338/2023 and UPC_CFI_410/2023 Registry number ACT_576555/2023 and ACT_15513/2024 Date 26 December, 2024 Parties Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics Sarl v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb Order/Decision reference ORD_598503/2023 Type of action Revocation Action Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat Headnotes: 1.In deference to the need for expeditious judgments and efficient proceedings, the Court may decide the case even by overturning the priority order of the issues to be decided where a determination can be made on the basis of a more easily resolvable reason - albeit logically subordinate - without examining those that are antecedent. 2. Although not a party to the proceedings, the inventor of the patent at suit cannot be examined as a witness or expert because he/she may have a direct interest in the outcome of the case and does not meet the requirements of Rule 181 (1) (a) and (b) ‘RoP’ for impartiality, objectivity and independence. Keywords: insufficiency of the disclosure, added matter, lack of inventive step Back to Decisions and Orders
Main Details: Case number UPC_CFI_338/2023 and UPC_CFI_410/2023 Registry number ACT_576555/2023 and ACT_15513/2024 Date 26 December, 2024 Parties Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics Sarl v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb Order/Decision reference ORD_598503/2023 Type of action Revocation Action Language of Proceedings English Court - Division Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat Headnotes: 1.In deference to the need for expeditious judgments and efficient proceedings, the Court may decide the case even by overturning the priority order of the issues to be decided where a determination can be made on the basis of a more easily resolvable reason - albeit logically subordinate - without examining those that are antecedent. 2. Although not a party to the proceedings, the inventor of the patent at suit cannot be examined as a witness or expert because he/she may have a direct interest in the outcome of the case and does not meet the requirements of Rule 181 (1) (a) and (b) ‘RoP’ for impartiality, objectivity and independence. Keywords: insufficiency of the disclosure, added matter, lack of inventive step Back to Decisions and Orders