Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- within Privacy, Transport, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
discretionary review requires the impugned order to be manifestly erroneous
The claimant presented a number of reasons why, in its view, the impugned order is incorrect, including new arguments not raised at first instance. It failed, however, to demonstrate or even argue that the alleged errors are manifest.
facts and arguments not raised cannot lead to a manifest error
Facts and arguments raised in separate proceedings (such as a license offer to the claimant), in which the defendants are not parties, and which were not submitted by the claimant at first instance, cannot lead to a manifest error. Similar applies to possibility to a litigation insurance, which was not argued by the claimant at first instance.
2. Division
CoA, LD Munich (first instance)
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_74/2026
4. Type of proceedings
infringement action, security for costs, discretionary review
5. Parties
Claimant: Advanced Standard Communication LLC, USA
Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC, USA; Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, USA; Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Germany; Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Germany
6. Patent
EP 3 016 464
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 220.3 RoP.
To view the full article please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
