Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Administered by:

Server stats:

199
active users

eupolicy.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.1

#upc

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Andrew Jones (hpcnotes)<p>Which language/technology did you use when developing your first parallel program?</p><p><a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/OpenMP" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OpenMP</span></a>? <a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/MPI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>MPI</span></a>? <a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/CUDA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>CUDA</span></a>? <a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/pthreads" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>pthreads</span></a>? <a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/Coarrays" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Coarrays</span></a>? <a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a>? Something else?</p><p><a href="https://mast.hpc.social/tags/HPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HPC</span></a></p>
Enginyeria Sense Fronteres<p>👩‍🏫 Ets estudiant de l’<a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ETSEIB" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ETSEIB</span></a>? Vols fer voluntariat internacional amb nosaltres? </p><p>Vine aquest dijous a la presentació de les noves oportunitats de voluntariat i col·labora amb els projectes que dona suport Enginyeria Sense Fronteres arreu del món! 🤝</p><p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/upc.edu" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>upc.edu</span></a></span> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Enginyeria Sense Fronteres<p>👩‍🏫 Ets estudiant de l'<a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ETSEIB" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ETSEIB</span></a>? Vols fer voluntariat internacional amb nosaltres? </p><p>Vine a la presentació de les noves oportunitats de voluntariat i col·labora amb els projectes que dona suport Enginyeria Sense Fronteres arreu del món! 🤝 </p><p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/upc.edu" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>upc.edu</span></a></span> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>The avalanche transceiver dispute at the UPC reaches its next stage, with the patentee now having prevailed in the action on the merits (after obtaining a provisional injunction).</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/ortovox_vs_mammut/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/orto</span><span class="invisible">vox_vs_mammut/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Infringement" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Infringement</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>The UPC doing their best to make patents enforceable despite difficulties in service in China. Two interesting decisions by default granting provisional injunctions.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/decisions_by_default_granting_provisional_injunctions/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/deci</span><span class="invisible">sions_by_default_granting_provisional_injunctions/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Injunctions" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Injunctions</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>The UPC has considered infringement by equivalents a few times. Here, it declined to opine on a specific test, noting that any test requires functional equivalence as a prerequisite, which was lacking in the case.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/infringement_action_after_evidence_preservation_order_fails_equivalents_test/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/infr</span><span class="invisible">ingement_action_after_evidence_preservation_order_fails_equivalents_test/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Infringement" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Infringement</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Equivalents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Equivalents</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>The UPC confirms that having been refused an extension for filing a defence leading to a decision by default, a party cannot set aside the decision by default unless it can show justifiable reasons for missing the deadline. </p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_confirms_decision_by_default/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">confirms_decision_by_default/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Deadlines" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Deadlines</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Default" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Default</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>I argue that the UPC ruling that it has jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent to consider infringement is a conventional reading of the Brussels Ibis Regulation - German court has jurisdiction over German defendants is a less controversial reading of the case.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_weighs_in_on_extraterritorial_jurisdiction/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">weighs_in_on_extraterritorial_jurisdiction/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Jurisdiction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Jurisdiction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>Here, the UPC elects to extend a period for one of the defendants, rather than order a stay, in view of upcoming EPO appeal hearing.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/extension_of_time_period_for_filing_defence_in_view_of_parallel_epo_appeal_proceedings/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/exte</span><span class="invisible">nsion_of_time_period_for_filing_defence_in_view_of_parallel_epo_appeal_proceedings/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/EPO" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>EPO</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Extension" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Extension</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>For at least the second time, the UPC Court of Appeal has reversed a first instance decision that I thought clearly correct. It has ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction to determine damages after a decision from a national court on infringement. I had better stop predicting.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_court_of_appeal_rules_that_upc_can_determine_damages_following_a_national_infringement_decision/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">court_of_appeal_rules_that_upc_can_determine_damages_following_a_national_infringement_decision/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Jurisdiction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Jurisdiction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Damages" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Damages</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>Provisional injunction on hand held vacuum cleaners overturned on appeal as CoA was not convinced the accused products worked as the patent claim requires.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_sets_aside_provisional_injunction_on_hand_held_vacuum_cleaners/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">sets_aside_provisional_injunction_on_hand_held_vacuum_cleaners/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Injunction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Injunction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Infringement" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Infringement</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>Having prevailed at the central division with the patent maintained in amended form, Edwards is also successful at the Munich local division in asserting its patent on prosthetic heart valves against Meril.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/edwards_lifesciences_corporation_v_meril_gmbh_meril_life_sciences_pvt_ltd/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/edwa</span><span class="invisible">rds_lifesciences_corporation_v_meril_gmbh_meril_life_sciences_pvt_ltd/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Infringement" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Infringement</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>The Paris Local Division has revoked a further DexCom patent on the ground of lack of inventive step. As in an earlier decision (one of the first decisions on the merits from the UPC) by the same division and similar parties relating to a different patent, in view of the finding of invalidity, infringement was not considered.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/paris_local_division_revokes_another_dexcom_patent/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/pari</span><span class="invisible">s_local_division_revokes_another_dexcom_patent/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Revocation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Revocation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>The UPC has confirmed that breach of a standstill agreement between the parties does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, nor does it render an action inadmissible. It can only give rise to liability for breach of contract. </p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/breach_of_a_standstill_agreement_does_not_affect_jurisdiction_or_admissibility/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/brea</span><span class="invisible">ch_of_a_standstill_agreement_does_not_affect_jurisdiction_or_admissibility/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Admissibility" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Admissibility</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Jurisdiction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Jurisdiction</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>After being granted a provisional injunction, a patentee has to start an action on the merits within a specified time, or the injunction will lapse. Here, the UPC clarifies that it is only necessary to file a Statement of Claim through the CMS by the deadline; it is not necessary for the court fee to have been received by the court within the time period. </p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/infringement_action_following_provisional_injunction/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/infr</span><span class="invisible">ingement_action_following_provisional_injunction/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Injunction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Injunction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>Insulet fails in two provisional injunction applications against EOFLOW and Menarini respectively, mainly due to doubts about the validity of the patent. Menarini in turn had failed to get the actions joined, or to intervene in the other case.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_denies_provisional_injunction_on_insulin_pump/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">denies_provisional_injunction_on_insulin_pump/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Injunction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Injunction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>This is an interesting pair of cases where ex parte injunctions were sought but refused; however the UPC agreed to order seizure of products (at an exhibition), for which the threshold is lower.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_grants_two_orders_to_seize_suspected_infringing_motorcycle_tyres/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">grants_two_orders_to_seize_suspected_infringing_motorcycle_tyres/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Injunction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Injunction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Seizure" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Seizure</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>UPC declines to order a provisional injunction where the balance of harm clearly favours the defendant. The defendant had a small market share and had been on the market for a considerable time.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_denies_provisional_injunction_on_tool_for_adjusting_the_height_of_cabinet_legs/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">denies_provisional_injunction_on_tool_for_adjusting_the_height_of_cabinet_legs/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Injunction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Injunction</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>UPC rules that a claimant who has been required to deposit a security for costs (in a revocation action) does not in general get the money back after winning at first instance only - they need to wait until any appeal is concluded.</p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/security_not_released_after_revocation_at_first_instance/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/secu</span><span class="invisible">rity_not_released_after_revocation_at_first_instance/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Revocation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Revocation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Security" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Security</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Costs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Costs</span></a></p>
Darren Smyth (he/him)<p>I don't think I am the only person that thought the first instance decision was correct here. However, CoA has overturned and ruled that that a national action commenced before the UPC begun does not preclude withdrawal of an opt out. </p><p><a href="https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_court_of_appeal_overturns_helsinki_on_opt_out_withdrawal/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">eip.com/uk/latest/article/upc_</span><span class="invisible">court_of_appeal_overturns_helsinki_on_opt_out_withdrawal/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/UPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>UPC</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Litigation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Litigation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/OptOut" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OptOut</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/Patents" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Patents</span></a></p>
TrendingLive feeds
About