Author: Alexander Wunsch
-
RD Nordic-Baltic, Procedural order on stay of proceedings, UPC_CFI_380/2023
During the written procedure, Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP give the Court a possibility to stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO if a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO: The Court must respect the fundamental right to an effective legal…
-
CD Paris, August 21, 2024, Order on stay of revocation proceedings, UPC_CFI_230/2024
Stay of revocation action pursuant to Rule 295(m) RoP: An appeal against the denial of provisional measures does generally not justify a stay of revocation proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(m) RoP. Rule 295(m) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the principle according to which proceedings must be conducted in a way which…
-
CoA Luxemburg, August 21, 2024, Order concering an application for a discretionary review by the CoA under Rule 220.3 RoP, UPC_CoA_454/2024
An appeal against an order denying a request to reject an action as manifestly bound tofail according to R.361 RoP is admissible under the requirements of R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP: A discretionary review by the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.220.3 RoP is only admissible if leave to appeal against the impugned order is required…
-
CoA Luxemburg, August 19, 2024, Decision concerning suspensive effect of appeal against preliminary injunction, UPC_CoA_388/2024
It is not a requirement that a request for suspensive effect is lodged in a separate workflow in theCourt’s case management system: This may be done separately, and is advisable if an order is required urgently. It cannot however be inferred from R.223 RoP that the lodging in a separate workflow is a requirement in…
-
LD Vienna, August 12, 2024, Procedural order on publicity of pleadings and evidence, UPC_CFI_33/2024
Weighing of interests when deciding on a request for the provision of pleadings and evidence pursuant to R 262.1 (b) RoP: If a request for the provision of pleadings and evidence is made by a member of the public pursuant to R 262.1 (b) RoP, the interests of that member of the public to have…
-
RD Nordic-Baltic, August 20, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_380/2023
Security for legal costs, party located in the United States: Since the imposition of a security for legal costs constitutes a restriction of the right to an effective remedy before a court, the need to protect the defendant has to be weighed against the burden on the claimant caused by an order to provide a…
-
LD The Hague, 4 March 2024, Order on confidentiality regarding financial information, UPC_CFI_239/2023
Limitation to “attorneys eyes only” possible under R. 262A RoP on protection of confidential information: Claimants applied for a confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) regarding financial information which did not relate to the main action but to Defendant’s request for security for costs (R. 158 RoP). The LD The Hague decided that access to confidential…
-
CD Munich, 27 February 2024, order to combine cases in revocation actions, UPC_CFI_1/2023, UPC_CFI_14/2023
Counterclaim for revocation can be combined with central revocation action against the same patent upon request by the parties: The parties agreed that the counterclaim for revocation pending at LD Munich should be dealt with together with an earlier filed and considerably further advanced central revocation action pending at the CD. The LD Munich thus…
-
LD Düsseldorf, 21 February 2024, procedural order on counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Official form for counterclaim of revocation shall be used : Although the Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim for revocation, the parties shall make use of the official forms available online. In practice, this means that the Counterclaim for revocation must also be filed in the workflow provided for this purpose by the CMS.…
-
CD Paris, 27 February 2024, order on request to amend the patent, UPC_CFI_255/2023
Request to further “amend the case” or “amend the patent” by defendant in revocation action due to invalidity attacks brought in the parallel counterclaim for revocation was rejected: Defendant in revocation action applied to amend the patent in due time, i.e, within the time period for lodging the defence to revocation. It then requested a…