Key takeaways
Failure to lodge Statement of response within the time limit of R. 235.2 RoP
✓
- Under R. 9.2 RoP the Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit.
- The CoA will, however, have to examine whether the grounds of appeal are well-founded and shall in this context consult the file of the proceedings before the CFI (R. 222.1 RoP); this means that the CoA should take the facts, evidence and arguments which Respondent submitted in first instance into account in assessing the grounds of appeal.
Exercising discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP
✓
- The fact that there is no experience yet with enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, does not rule out the possibility that enforcing a cost decision against Claimant seated in China may prove to be impossible or unduly burdensome; in absence of such experience, the Court must examine the likelihood of successful enforcement on the basis of other facts and circumstances.
- Relevant factor: Respondent has its registered office in a country that is not a Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
UPC_CoA_431/2025, APL_23095/2025, ORD_31691/2025
Type of proceedings
Appeal RoP 220.2
Parties
Appellants (Defendants in the main proceedings before CFI):
1. CHINT NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
2. ASTRONERGY EUROPE GMBH
3. ASTRONERGY GMBH
4. ASTRONERGY SOLARMODULE GMBH
5. ASTRONERGY SOLAR NETHERLANDS B.V.
6. CHINT SOLAR NETHERLANDS B.V.
Respondent (Claimant in the main proceedings before CFI):
JINGAO SOLAR CO., LTD.
Patent(s)
EP 4 092 759
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 235.2 RoP, R. 235.3 RoP, R. 9.2 RoP, R. 355 RoP, R. 158 RoP, Art. 69(4) UPCA
