Opens in a new tab

OCADO INNOVATION v AUTOSTORE (CFI, 8 September 2023)

Date8 September 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionNordic Baltic Regional Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_11/2023
Registry referenceORD_459791/2023 · UPC_CFI_11/2023
PartiesOCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v. AUTOSTORE AS

Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_11/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 8 September 2023 OCADO INNOVATION v AUTOSTORE (CFI, 8 September 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_11/2023
  2. 17 October 2023 OCADO INNOVATION v AUTOSTORE (CFI, 17 October 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_11/2023

    Le juge rapporteur accorde à un tiers l'accès au mémoire en demande, après occultation des données personnelles et à compter du 7 novembre 2023, refuse l'accès aux ordonnances et autorise l'appel.

  3. 10 April 2024 Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 April 2024) Generic Order · appeal, first-instance number cited in the decision

    La cour d'appel de la JUB juge qu'elle peut statuer sans juges techniciens sur une question non technique et confirme l'accès d'un membre du public au mémoire en demande d'une action close par transaction, après mise en balance des intérêts de l'article 45 de l'Accord.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division déclare la procédure close après le désistement consenti par les défenderesses, ne statue pas sur les frais, fixe la valeur du litige à 3 000 000 EUR et rembourse 18 600 EUR de taxes.
Appeal
An appeal is documented in the corpus (see above).
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 653 540Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): OCADO INNOVATION v AUTOSTORE (CFI, 17 October 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.