Author: Antje Weise
-
CoA, January 15, 2025, order on withdrawal, UPC_CoA_629/2024
Withdrawal of the action during appeal proceedings possible: After the first instance infringement decision was appealed, the decision on withdrawal is within the competence of the CoA. According to R. 265.1 RoP, the decision of the first instance is not final. Therefore, admissibility of the withdrawal of the infringment action is not precluded during appeal.…
-
LD Munich, January 13, 2025, revised order on auxiliary requests, UPC_CFI_298/2023
The number of 55 auxiliary requests can be reasonable: Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds of invalidity raised), the importance of the patent at issue and the…
-
CoA, January 14, 2024, order on panel review, UPC_CoA_651/2024
Order on security is case management and open for panel review (R. 333 RoP): Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel. There is a broad scope for review of actions of the judge-rapporteur, as laid down…
-
CD Paris, September 27, 2024, Procedural Order on Security of Costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
50% of ceiling of recoverable costs as security during written proccedings: The Respondent is a limited company which was registered 7 months before the present infringement action was filed and has only one employee besides the managing director. It’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding…
-
LD Munich, October 2, Procedural Order on Security for Costs UPC_CFI_54/2024
US-based NPE has to provide security: The Claimant is a non-practicing entity with no operational business. Its business model appears to be based solely on revenues expected from patent litigation. The Claimant owns no other assets other than the patents used in multiple worldwide litigations and it has failed to substantially challenge these reasons and…
-
LD Paris, August 21, 2024, Procedural order, UPC_CFI_358/2023
Only the arguments according to its written corresponding proceeding are considered : R. 36 RoP allows the parties to request additional written submissions from the judge rapporteur on a reasoned request, in order to ensure that the principles of flexibility and adaptability and the general principle of justice and fairness set out in point 2…
-
LD Hamburg, August 9, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_278/2023
The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court’s satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable: The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court’s satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable, as shown by the wording…
-
LD Duesselorf, August 8, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_140/2024
No reason to limit access for authorised representative’s team: Normally, in main proceedings there is no reason to limit the party’s representatives who have access to confidential information to a certain number of team members or even to UPC representatives and their internal assistants. To fullfill the requirement of R. 262A.6 RoP (number of persons…
-
LD Mannheim, June 27, 2024, indicative decision, UPC_CFI_ 210/2023
Arguments on claim construction to be made with the Statement of Claim: According to R. 13(1)(n) RoP in cases of technically complex subject-matters, the Statement of Claim must already contain the claim construction if the patent in suit is not readily understandable on its own. In case the plaintiff does not comply, further legal issues…
-
LD Duesseldorf, June 27, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Deadline Extensions due to R. 242A RoP applications in FRAND proceedings: If the Defendant deals extensively with license negotiations between itself and a patent pool in the context of the substantiation of the FRAND objection raised by it, the Claimant can only respond comprehensively to this argument if he can consult with employees of the…
-
CD Paris, June 26, 2024, order, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Independence of a counsellor is measured with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party : The fact that the representative of a party is also the inventor of the patent-in-suit, the original applicant of the application underlying the patent-in-suit and the managing director of the first assignee of the patent does…
-
LD Duesseldorf, June 26, 2024, procedual order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Direct and present interest of the Intervener: The legal interest required for the admissibility of the intervention is given if the Intervener has a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the assisted party. Such a legal interest can be affirmed if the patent in suit has been…
-
LD Duesseldorf, June 24, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_456/2023
If access to written pleadings is restricted to representatives only according to R. 262A RoP, this is regularly a reason for the extension of time limits: R. 9.3 (a) RoP authorizes the court to extend time limits. However, this option should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. Such an exceptional…
-
LD The Hague, June 25, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_195/2024
Applicant/Defendant has to bear the cost of simultaneous interpretation in the case of a Polish translation : To effectively meet the requirements of the fundamental right to be heard, it is important to allow parties to use simultaneous interpreter(s) if they deem this necessary to enable them to fully participate in the oral hearing that…
-
CD Paris, April 25, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI-361/2023
Key Takeaways Neither a Preliminary Objection nor the likelihood of an appeal against its rejection are relevant factors for the stay of the proceedings : Neither the fact that a Preliminary Objection has been lodged nor the likelihood of success of the appeal against the rejection of the Preliminary Objection are relevantfactors for deciding whether…
-
CoA Luxembourg, April 26, 2024, UPC_CoA_500/2023
Time period for lodging an appeal can be extended in case of an excusable error: It is true that the time period for lodging an appeal is a mandatory time limit that cannot be extended (see R. 9.4 RoP) However, an excusable error can, in exceptional circumstances, justify a derogation from that rule. That is…
-
LD Duesseldorf, 26 February 2024, procedural order on language of proceedings, UPC_CoA_335/2023
Applications on change of language require substantiated reasons: The Applicant requested for a change of language from German into English (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 322 RoP). It argued that both parties were English speaking companies, that it was an SME and translation costs would be disproportionately disadvantageous for it. Also, this would enable the CoA…