story mock trial.doc - · pdf filemock trial w dity question resentation b ional court a ......

Dec

Ax “W As y The But Thevali RepNat At han Cona la Nowwel

I gi

cember 9, 2013

xel Casalon

Welcome to the

you know the

e Central Div

t the Central D

e mock trial widity question

presentation btional Court a

CASALONGndled by a team

nsequently, inawyer and a E

w I would likl‐known prof

• The Pres• To his lef• To his r

Chairma

ve the floor to

ga (Europe

e Electronic pa

e Central Div

vision will ma

Division will

which we arens before the C

before the Uand by Europ

GA, we thinkm constituted

n this Mock TEuropean Pate

ke to presentfessionals.

siding Judge weft is our Judgright is the Tan of an EPO

o the presiden

ean Patent A

atent litigatio

vision will be

ainly be handl

l also handle i

e now going tCentral Divis

UPC will be ppean Patent A

k that in suchd by a lawyer

Trial, you wilent Attorney.

t you the pan

will be Richarge RapporteurTechnical Jud Board of App

ncy Judge.”

‐ 1 ‐

Attorney –

on Mock Tria

located in Pa

ling validity o

infringement

to present wiion.

possible by lAttorney with

h important and a Europe

l see that each.

nel of the Cen

rd Vary (Hear, Dr Koenraadge, Stephanpeal dealing w

Moc

CASALON

al.

ris.

of European p

in certain sit

ill therefore r

lawyers authh a specific qu

patent litigatean Patent A

h party will b

ntral Division

ad of litigationad Wuyts (Chn Steinbrenerwith television

ck Trial under th

NGA & AS

patents and U

tuations.

relate to both

orized to repalification.

tions representtorney.

be represented

n which is co

n ‐ Nokia corphief IP Officer (Bardehle Pn and telecom

he UPC Central D

© CA

SSOCIÉS)

Unitary paten

infringemen

present before

ntations shou

d by such a te

onstituted of

poration). r – KPN). Pagenberg), fommunications

Division

ASALONGA

nts.

nt and

e any

uld be

eam of

f three

former s.

Dec

PreRic “To

The

The

Thiwrihapon t Ordcircdinpanexceben Andwhi

cember 9, 2013

esiding Judchard Vary

oday we have

• PLAIN• DEFEN

e plaintiff will

• Caroline• Jürgen N

Munich.

e defendants w

• Floriane• Axel Ca

ASSOCI

is is the finaltten procedurppened so far ithe questions

dinarily in thcumstances, tner menu, annel has decideeptional circuchʺ.

d so now I askich has broug

dge: y

the hearing of

NTIFF: NDANTS:

l be represent

e Casalonga, aNeugebauer, .

will be represe

e Codevelle, a asalonga, a EIÉS in Paris.

l hearing in tre. So for the in the writtenof infringeme

he Unified Pthe panel mand having coned that of speumstances do

k the represenght is to this p

of a claim betw

US CompanGerman Com

ted by:

a patent lawya European

ented by

patent lawyeEuropean Pat

the procedureaudience I wn and interiment and valid

Patent Court ay give its densidered the pending the evo exist in this

ntatives of thepoint.”

‐ 2 ‐

ween two par

ny Smartcommpany Chann

yer, partner ofPatent Atto

er of the law fitent Attorney

e, and before will first ask om procedure. Wdity.

the decision ecision in theprospect of spevening writins case, and s

e Plaintiff to i

Moc

ties:

nel S and US

f the law firmrney of CAS

firm CASALOy and senior

this the partur party reprWe will then h

would be gie hearing. Foending the evng a judgmeo we will be

introduce us

ck Trial under th

S Company G

m CASALONGSALONGA &

ONGA in Parr partner of

ties will haveresentatives tohear the argu

ven in writinollowing a cavening writinnt, this panegiving our d

to the parties

he UPC Central D

© CA

lobalSport

GA in Paris, & PARTNER

ris, and CASALONG

e been througo explain whaments on each

ng. In excepareful study ong a judgmentel has decideddecision ʺfrom

s and the proc

Division

ASALONGA

and RS in

GA &

gh the at has h side

tional of the t, this d that m the

cedure

Dec

ClaCar “Th BA Th US file

A wFrein P SMtho SM Eurview Th SMlocacou Expima ThePar

cember 9, 2013

aimantʹs reroline Casa

hank you.”

ACKGROUN

e story

company Sd in 2000

for a main

exam- i- i

world cup foench, GermaParis for crea

MARTCOM sose images si

MARTCOM d

ropean Patewing the bro

e action

MARTCOMdated in Parisuld be found

parte procedages) and by

e local Divisris by a Fren

presentativalonga (IP L

ND

SMARTCOM

method of mnly used focountries

mple: footbalin FR: camemin UK: tea

ootball matcan, British anation of vide

strongly susince the broa

decided to en

ent Counsel oadcasted im

ecided to fis since Chand and “saisie

dure (Rule y high risk of

sion issued anch bailiff (fo

ve: Lawyer – C

M owns EP p

modifying aor adapting

ll match withmbert

ch in Brazil wnd Austrian eo images.

spected thatadcasted res

nforce its pa

advised to mages did no

ile an applinnel S has it‐contrefaçon

197) justifief destruction

an exparte oollowing usu

‐ 3 ‐

CASALON

patent No 4

zone in sucadvertisem

h advertisem

was broadcaTV. Germa

t its patentesult looked v

atent before t

try obtaininot show how

ication to pts laboratoryn” is familiar

ed by reason of technica

rder for inspual French pr

Moc

GA AVOC

62 designati

cessive imagments in vid

ments:

asted by Geran company

ed method very similar

the UPC (no

ng more eviw the images

preserve eviy near Paris r in France.

onable evideal informatio

pection at thractice).

ck Trial under th

CATS)

ing FR, DE,

ges on a videdeo program

rman compay Channel S

had been u

o opt‐out on

idence of ins had been c

dence at thwhere techn

ence availabon on the me

he laboratory

he UPC Central D

© CA

UK, SW, A

eo sequencems for diff

any “hannelhas a labor

used for cre

the patent).

fringementreated

he local Divnical inform

ble (broadcaethod used.

y of Channe

Division

ASALONGA

AT, IT

e ferent

l S on atory

eating

since

vision mation

asted

el S in

Dec

Thecom JudKo “WGer ClaCar “Exof ofilesprocturndivi“saigran In athe DeFlo “Thhavus tour Thethe applodg Thi

cember 9, 2013

e bailiff’s rempany Globa

dge Rapporoenraad Wu

Why did you frmany, when


xparte becausour applicatios. The defendcessing of thened out to bision because isie‐contrefaçnt an appropr

addition, the aresult of the i

efendantʹs roriane Code

his is one of ove been sued into defend oursrselves.

e plaintiff hasclaim in thplication for pged at the div

is is a further

eport showealSport (whi

rteur: uyts

file the inspecyou allege inf


e risk that evon. The Paris dant is Germae images wasbe the case anwe thought tçon” so that triate order for

action on the inspection”.

representatevelle (IP L

our grounds n Paris, and iselves: we hav

s also broken te central divpreserving evivision where t

example of th

ed that the iich owns 100

ction ex partefringements a

ve: Lawyer – C

idence wouldoffice is one oan but the Pas, and therefond we foundthe two Frencthis local divir inspection.

merit could t

tive: Lawyer – C

of objection tin the Englishve to find Eng

the rules whevision. If I cidence is befothe applicant

heir rule break

‐ 4 ‐

images wer0% of the sh

e? And why are also happe

CASALON

d be moved if wof many officaris office wasre the copies d the documech Judges wouision would b

then be bough

ASALONG

to these proceh language. Tglish speakin

en it chose thecould remindre proceedingintends to sta

king and bad

Moc

e not createhares of Chan

in Paris, whening in Aus

GA AVOC

we applied inces they have,s believed to of the most rents we needuld be more fbe more inclin

ht also before

GA AVOCA

eedings. We aThis makes it g lawyers in

e Local divisid you of rulegs on the merart proceeding

conduct in th

ck Trial under th

ed by Channnel S).

hen the plaintria, German

CATS)

nter partes and it would be be where therelevant docued. We chosefamiliar with ned than othe

this local divi

ATS)

are a Germanexpensive andParis, and tr

ion for the inse 192 whichrits have beengs on the mer

his case.”

he UPC Central D

© CA

nel S but b

tiffs domicileny and the UK

d gave them neasy to remove laboratory fouments are kee the French the similar Fr local divisio

ision dependi

n company bud more difficuravel here to d

spection, then states that n started it shrits.

Division

ASALONGA

y US

e is in K?”

notice ve the for the ept. It local French ons to

ng on

ut we ult for defend

n filed if an hall be

Dec

ClaCar “This thoptichospatejudgend JudKo “Wdeciare prel

The

So proc PreRic “Plresu

cember 9, 2013


he language ofhe language oion of doing se it so we coent, which sage from the bded up here an

dge rapportoenraad Wu

Whilst we haveide on those oobjections wliminary obje

Rule 19 –claim, the and compclaimant [

e consequence

7. The defreferred tocompetenc

the panel mceedings.”


ease would tult of the saisi


of the patent isof the patent. so under Arould be sure aves argumenbeginning. Anyway in rela

teur: uyts

e heard the Dobjections of which should ection.

– Preliminarydefendant mpetence of the[Rule 13.1(i)]

es of not doing

efendant’s faio in Rule 19ce of the Cour

must dismiss

dge: y

the claimant ie?”

ve: Lawyer – C

s English. ArWe do not hart 33(1) becauthat the langnts about trAnd because tation to at leas

efendantʹs obthe Defendanbe raised at

y Objection: 1ay lodge a Pre Court, (b) ], (c) the langu

g so are set ou

lure to lodge9.1 shall be rt and the com

s your object

continue its

‐ 5 ‐

CASALON

rticle 49(6) saave to justify use GlobalSpguage of proceanslations, athere is a coust part of the

bjections and nt because thithe prelimin

1. Within onereliminary objthe competeuage of the St

ut in rule 19(

e a Preliminatreated as ampetence of th

tions at this

opening sub

Moc

GA AVOC

ays that the laour choice of port is outsideedings was tnd so we couunterclaim forclaim.“

the Claimantis objection hnary stage of

e month of sejection concernce of the dtatement of cl

(7).

ary objection submission he division ch

s stage and

bmissions: wh

ck Trial under th

CATS)

anguage at thf the central de the UPC mthe same as tuld be sure tr revocation

tʹs responses,has been brouf proceedings

rvice of the Srning (a) the ivision indiclaim [Rule 14

n within the to the jurisosen by the cl

we move o

hat evidence

he UPC Central D

© CA

he Central Divivision: we hamember statesthe language to have a techwe may well

, we do not haght too late. under a Ru

Statement of jurisdiction cated by the 4].

time period diction and laimant.

on with the

was obtained

Division

ASALONGA

vision ad the s. We of the hnical l have

ave to These ule 19

main

d as a

Dec

ClaJür Exp Evi Bai

Pre “An ClaCar Exp Sta WitandBra“Ch

cember 9, 2013

aimantʹs rergen Neuge

plains the ev

idence of a

iliff’s report

A tec- b

a- u

Finan- 5- f- t- w- r

esiding Jud

nd having obt


plains the ne

atement of cl

thin 31 calend “Channel Sazil by the hannel S” in

Orde- 1- o

presentativebauer (Eur

vidence gath

alleged infr

(following o

chnical reporbroadcastedadvertisemeusing color a

ncial docum5 football mafor 4 years total advertiwith an averroyalties pai

dge: Richar

tained this ev


ext steps take

laim

ndar days, ”S” on infrinpatented m

n FR, DE, UK

er for determ14% royalty on the basis

ve: ropean Pat

hered in the s

ringement

order for insp

rt from Globd images areents panels and shape re

ments of Chanatches each

ising of “Charage profit mid to “Globa

rd Vary

vidence, how d

ve: Lawyer – C

en:

”SMARTCOMgement by i

method and K and AT.

mination of dfee (1 millioof financial

‐ 6 ‐

tent Attorne

saisie.

pection):

balSport stat transforme

ecognition

nnel S state:year broadc

annel S”: 14 margin of 30%alSport”: 2,4

did you go ab

CASALON

M” filed a simportation on infringe

damages waon euros) information

Moc

ey – CASA

tes: d by a dyna

casted in FR,

millions eur% millions eur

out commenc

GA AVOC

tatement of by “GlobalSement by b

s requested:

n collected d

ck Trial under th

ALONGA &

amic insertio

DE, UK and

ros

ros

cing the writt

CATS)

claim againSport” of imbroadcasting

:

uring inspec

he UPC Central D

© CA

& PARTNE

on of memo

d AT

ten procedure

nst “GlobalSpmages obtaing the image

ction

Division

ASALONGA

RS)

rized

?”

port” ned in es by

Dec

PreRic “Thresp DeFlo Exp Glo

SMrep PreRic “ThRap

cember 9, 2013

Prop

RequA


hank you. Nponse?”


plains the ste

obalSport file No in

- i- i

s- t

Coun- p- n- i

The v- s

MARTCOM dply to counte


hank you. Folpporteur.”

posed value f

uest for defiAT)

dge: y

Now turning


eps:

ed a stateme

nfringementimportation identificationsystem the result is

nterclaim forpatent invalino technical invention la

value of litigsince the pat

decided not erclaim with

dge: y

llowing the ex

for the litiga

nitive injun

to the Defen

tive: Lawyer – C

ent of defenc

t: of images isn of referen

obtained ess

r revocationid invention cks inventiv

gation is lesstent is clearl

to file a repin 2 months

xchange of w

‐ 7 ‐

ation: equal t

ction in all

ndantʹs repre

ASALONG

ce within 3 m

s not an infrince points

sentially by

n

ve step

s than 300K€y invalid

ply to statem

ritten briefs,

Moc

to the reques

designated

esentatives, w

GA AVOCA

months.

ingement is not nece

color recogn

€

ment of defen

the Court ap

ck Trial under th

sted damage

States (FR,

what steps h

ATS)

essary in th

nition

nce. But SMA

pointed Dr W

he UPC Central D

© CA

es

DE, UK, IT,

have you tak

he “GlobalSp

ARTCOM fi

Wuyts as the J

Division

ASALONGA

, SW,

ken in

port”

iled a

Judge

Dec

JudKo “Hacolo Valcou PreRic “SoWo We ClaCar “Th Onevaliawabifualleg DeFlo “Thto t [Pa PreRic “W

cember 9, 2013

dge Rapporoenraad Wu

aving been apor and shape r

ue exceeds cnterclaim, at


o now we mould the claim

will then ask


hank you pres

e point, todayidity, that sharded. That isurcation of pgations of inv


his is an outrahe invalidity

arties argue].


We are in the c

rteur: uyts

ppointed, I arecognition?

laim alone b10 M€.”

dge: y

ove on with mant first like

k the Defenda


siding judge,

y we are deterhould be heas one of the groceedings, avalidity.“


ageous suggesof his patent.

.

dge: y

central divisio

sked the part

ecause of cou

the Oral proto address us

nt to give his

ve: Lawyer – C

but if I could

rmining infriard separatelygreat benefitsand the infrin

tive: Lawyer – C

stion. The Cl.”

on. The bifur

‐ 8 ‐

ties how exac

unterclaim so

ocedure. The on infringem

submissions

CASALON

just correct

ngement onlyy after infrins of this newngement case

ASALONG

aimant only w

rcation option

Moc

ctly does Glob

o I decided a

oral hearing ment, and why

in response.”

GA AVOC

y? There is nongement has w court is it ne need not b

GA AVOCA

wants to dela

n of Article 3

ck Trial under th

balSport obta

a value of lit

has been schy he says the

”

CATS)

o need to troubeen found not, that the be delayed by

ATS)

ay the day wh

33(3) is open

he UPC Central D

© CA

ain the result

tigation, inclu

heduled for tpatent is vali

uble the courtand the rempatentee mayy these groun

en he must fa

at the prelim

Division

ASALONGA

t with

uding

today. id?

t with medies y seek ndless

ace up

minary

Dec

stagaddeach TecSte Des Cla Mescen

TecSte Ask DeAx Exp

cember 9, 2013

ge to local andress us on boh. We will fir

chnical judephan Stein

scribes how

aim 1 of EP 4

ethod for mone, comprisi

storinchararepre

automcurre

calcutarge

transcalcu

comprepre

replatrans

chnical Judephan Stein

ks the Defen

efendantʹs rxel Casalon

plains argum

Publ- a- c

nd regional doth infringemst consider in

dge: nbrener

the panel ha

462

odifying theing: ng data idacterizing pesentation (pmatically reent image (pulating the loet from the losforming theulation paring pixeesentation inacing the psformed repr

dge: nbrener

ndant to set o

representatga (Europe

ments for inv

ished patenta video proccombining tw

ivisions, butment and valinvalidity.”

as understoo

e content of

dentifying apoints (to pixel by pixeecognizing apattern recogocation, sizeocation of the stored ful

l by pixel n the currentpixels of paresentation o

out his argum

tive: ean Patent A

validity.

t document cessing systewo video se

‐ 9 ‐

is not open idity today, a

od the claim

a sequence

a non defobe replacedel) of the targat least a sgnition) and perspehe characterill represent

the transfot image attern in thof the target

ments as to w

Attorney –

D1 disclosesem equences

Moc

to the Centraand we will r

m.

of images r

ormable tard in the sget subset of ch

ctive of the izing points ation of the

ormed repre

he image byt zone

why the clai

CASALON

s

ck Trial under th

al division. Wreach our dec

representing

rget definescene) and

haracterizing

current reprin the curree target in

esentation w

y the pixel

im is invalid

NGA & AS

he UPC Central D

© CA

We will ask ycision in resp

g an evolutio

d by a sea full pa

g points in

resentation ont image response to

with the cu

ls of the st

d.

SSOCIÉS)

Division

ASALONGA

you to pect of

onary

et of attern

each

of the

o this

urrent

tored

Dec

TecSte “I utechyou DeAx “Thsuch PreRic “An

cember 9, 2013

At le Pixel

repre With

- aw

Publ

- ms

The p It wo

- t- i- s

chnical judephan Stein

understand frhnology couldu see a hint in


here is no neeh a replaceme


nd now please

east 4 referen

ls addressesesent the pol

h a stylus anda user positiwhere the tr

ished patentmeasuremensystem

position of e

ould be obvito apply the in the methoso as to arriv

dge: nbrener

from your argd be easily re the prior art


d for such a hent.”

dge: y

e would the C

nce points de

s in a videlygon in the

d a touch tabions the polransformed f

t document nt of size an

each side of t

ous for a skidetection ofod disclosedve at an auto

guments thateplaced by a pto do that?”

tive: ean Patent A

hint. The skil

Claimant addr

‐ 10 ‐

efine a polyg

eo frame of same 3D lo

blet lygon in a frframe is to a

D2 disclosesnd position o

the key area

illed person f position of in D1 omatic imag

t you considepattern recog

Attorney –

lled person kn

ress us as to i

Moc

gon in each v

f the 1st secation

rame of the appear

s of a chroma

a within the T

f key area as

e insertion a

er the colour gnition system

CASALON

nows both pos

infringement?

ck Trial under th

video frame

equence are

2nd sequenc

key area in

TV picture is

taught by D

as in the claim

recognition m known in

NGA & AS

ssibilities and

?”

he UPC Central D

© CA

e

transforme

ce at the loc

n an analogu

s measured

D2

med inventi

using chromD1. But whe

SSOCIÉS)

d could easily

Division

ASALONGA

ed to

cation

ue TV

ion

ma key ere do

make

Dec

ClaCar Arg

“Fir It is The Eveby G The

cember 9, 2013


guments for

Bailifinser

This Even

was s

rst of all, I wo

s clear that vi

erefore, impor

en if some kinGlobalSport c

erefore, the in


r infringeme

ff’s report drtion of mem

shows that s

n if some coshape recog

ould like to an

ideo images ar

rtation of thos

nd of color recconsists in sha

vention as cla

ve: Lawyer – C

ent

iscloses thatmorized adve

shape recog

lor recognitnition with r

nswer one arg

re in fact “pro

se products is

cognition wasape recognitio

aimed in the p

‐ 11 ‐

CASALON

t broadcasteertisement p

nition was u

tion was alsoreference po

gument of the

oducts” obtai

s clearly an inf

s used, it is clon.

patent of Sma

Moc

GA AVOC

ed images arpanels using

used to creat

o used, the oints

e defendant ab

ined by a pate

nfringement.

lear that the m

artcom is inde

ck Trial under th

CATS)

re transformshape recog

te the image

main featur

bout importat

ented method.

main feature o

eed reproduce

he UPC Central D

© CA

med by a dyngnition

s

re of the me

tion of images

.

of the method

ed.”

Division

ASALONGA

namic

ethod

s.

d used

Dec

ClaJür Arg

“Th The Afte Therem Tur Arg

cember 9, 2013

aimantʹs rergen Neuge

guments for

his sketch sho

e original ima

er insertion, t

e dimensions,main the same

rning now to

guments for

D1 dtarge

Ther D2 o Ther It is n No h

presentativebauer (Eur

r infringeme

ws now the im

ages have an a

the images ha

, the orientatbefore and af

the question

r validity

discloses an iet area e is no pixelnly disclosee is no 3D canot obvious hint to replac

ve: ropean Pat

ent

mages appear

advertisement

ave another ad

tion and the fter insertion.

of the validity

identification

l comparisons an automaalculation ofto derive thce color reco

‐ 12 ‐

tent Attorne

r on the screen

t of a tea box

dvertisement

position of . This is a cle

y of the paten

n of charact

n in D1 atic replacemf any transfoe invention ognition of D

Moc

ey – CASA

n after inserti

or rectangula

of a camembe

the key areaear evidence of

nt.”

eristic point

ment of chromormation in Dfrom these d

D2 by pattern

ck Trial under th

ALONGA &

ion.

ar shape.

ert round box

defined by of pattern reco

ts by manua

ma key areaD2 documents n recognition

he UPC Central D

© CA

& PARTNE

x.

6 reference pognition.

l adjustmen

as

n of D1

Division

ASALONGA

RS)

points

nt to a

Dec

DeAx Arg Arg

Theannfoll Thechadim Theadv D1 chaapp Altareocc Ondoe If oimp Hocolo

cember 9, 2013


gues non inf

gument on l

Impo The i The m

a tracalcu

e Panel discnounces thalows

e teaching oaracteristic pmensional tra

e automatic vertisements

would be aracteristic pproach. Furth

though D2 ras by insertcurred, the sy

e might argues not relate

one starts fproving dyn

wever, this our recognit


fringement.

lack of infrin

ortation of imimages are omethod usedansformed tulated and th

cusses amont the Panel

f the patent points of tansformatio

processing is.

unsuitable points by mhermore, no

relates to tet patterns, thystem of D2

ue that D1 ito a televisi

from D2, annamic image

would reqution using ch

tive: ean Patent A

ngement

mages is notobtained mad is a slight target on then applied

ngst themsefinds the p

in suit diffethe target an occurred a

is done in re

for this pumanually adjo pixel comp

elevision andhere is no th being main

is not an ideon system.

n objective insertion po

uire a fundamhroma key t

‐ 13 ‐

Attorney –

t an infringeminly by a colmodificatiothe basis ofto the insert

elves, then patent to be

ers from D1 area in theand making

eal time to a

urpose. It rjusting themparison is dis

d allows anhree‐dimensnly static.

eal starting p

technical prossibilities.

mental modtechnology s

Moc

CASALON

ment since ilor recognition of D2 whef which thet pattern

the Presidivalid and i

mainly by ae video ima pixel‐by‐p

allow instant

relies on cum to a targesclosed in D

n automatic sional calcul

point for ass

roblem to b

dification of tseems to be

ck Trial under th

NGA & AS

images are nion method ere the mease correct tr

ing Judge, infringed, g

automaticallmage, calculpixel compar

taneous inse

umbersome et area on 1.

replacemenlation of an

essing inven

be solved m

the D2 systeentirely diff

he UPC Central D

© CA

SSOCIÉS)

not real prod

sured key arransformatio

Richard. Vgiving reason

ly identifyinating the trison

ertion of diff

identificatioa trial and

nt of chromany transform

ntive step sin

might be see

em. Furthermferent and w

Division

ASALONGA

ducts

rea is on is

Vary, ns as

ng the three‐

ferent

on of error

a key mation

nce it

en in

more, would

Dec

havaut Neito t Hen In vCoume In fprereco Thepro The“prMe In plecos TheSmlum In v Finreimpro

cember 9, 2013

ve to be reptomated vers

ither, D2 alothe teaching

nce, the inve

view of the urt also concthod reprod

fact the technemises of thognition.

e fact that sotection of th

e Court conroducts” so ember States

view of thadings of thsts.

e Court thumartcom, the mp sum base

view of the e

nally, the Coumbursed byovided in the

placed by asion for whi

one nor a comof the paten

ention of the

arguments cludes that tducing the es

nical report he laboratory

some color rhe patent

nsiders also that imporis an infring

he evidence he parties, th

us orders thinjured par

ed on the roy

evidence file

urt orders thy the infrine Rules of Pr

a pattern recch D1 does n

mbination ont, but rather

e patent in su

of the partithe images issential featu

from “Globy of “Chan

recognition

that imagesrting those gement act a

filed by thhe panel con

hat the infrirty, as reparyalties which

ed, the Court

hat legal cosnging partierocedure.

‐ 14 ‐

cognition synot give any

of D1 and D2r give an im

uit implies a

ies and on timported byures of the P

alsport” founnel S” ackn

is also used

s obtained bimages on

as defined in

he Claimantnsiders possi

inging partiration of thh would hav

t sets this lu

sts and expenes Channel

Moc

ystem knowy hint.

2 would therpression of h

an inventive

the basis of y “GlobalSpoPatent.

und by the banowledges t

d does not a

by performithe territo

n Art 25 (c) o

t and takinible to decid

ies Channele harm suffve been due.

mp sum at 3

nses incurreS and Glo

ck Trial under th

wn from D1

refore seem hindsight.

step.

the evidencort” have be

ailiff duringthat the me

allow to esc

ing the claimry of the Uof the UPCA

ng into accode also now

l S and Glofered by the.

3 millions Eu

ed by SmartcbalSport, u

he UPC Central D

© CA

, however i

to plausibly

ce presentedeen obtained

g inspection aethod uses s

cape the sco

med methoUPC Contra.

ount the won damage

obalSport pae infringeme

uros.

com be integp to the ce

Division

ASALONGA

in an

y lead

d, the d by a

at the shape

ope of

d are acting

ritten s and

ay to ent, a

grally eiling

Dec

Ax “Th We 1st q Youdivsur AnAxe Reqdiffdoedivclar 2nd Wilinfr AnCa In shoconcon

cember 9, 2013

xel Casalon

his ends our m

have still a li

question

u choose to vision for obre this is real

nswer el Casalong

questing an ferent from es not prohivision. Howrify this poss

Question

ll importingringement a

nswer roline Casa

principle, thould be a cntracting Mentracting Me

ga (Europe

mock trial pre

ittle time left f

bring the cabtaining an ally possible?

ga (Europea

order for infiling an acibit to requewever, the wsibility and t

g from outsiction before

alonga (IP L

his is broadclear economember Statesember States

ean Patent A

esentation.

for questions

ase before thauthorisatio

an Patent A

nspection beftion before est an order wording of Rto be in bette

ide of the cothe Central

Lawyer – C

dly providedmical relatis and at leasts.

‐ 15 ‐

Attorney –

from the aud

he Central Dn for inspec

Attorney –

fore a Localsuch local dbefore a di

Rule 192 of ter conformit

ontracting MDivision as

CASALONG

d by Articleionship betwt one other c

Moc

CASALON

dience.”

Division aftection as a pr

CASALON

Division acdivision. Thivision and the present ty with the U

Member Statyou showed

GA AVOCA

e 33(1) UPCween the dco‐defendant

ck Trial under th

NGA & AS

r having actrovisional m

NGA & ASS

ccording to Aherefore the file an actiodraft shouldUPC Agreem

tes always ad in your pre

ATS)

C. Neverthedefendant frt domiciled

he UPC Central D

© CA

SSOCIÉS)

ted before ameasure. Are

SOCIÉS)

Article 60 UUPC Agree

on before and be amendment.

allow to brinesentation?

eless, I feel rom outsidewithin one o

Division

ASALONGA

local e you

UPC is ement nother ded to

ng an

there e the of the

Dec

Axe “I wpres Tha

cember 9, 2013

el Casalonga

would like tosenting this f

ank you for yo

a closes the m

o thank warmfirst trial befor

our attention.

mock trial p

mly our threere the Centra

.”

‐ 16 ‐

resentation.

e excellent jual division in P

Moc

udges who didParis.

ck Trial under th

d a great job

he UPC Central D

© CA

b in preparing

Division

ASALONGA

g and

story mock trial.doc - · pdf filemock trial w dity question resentation b ional court a ......

Documents