Author: Martin Drews
-
LD Milan, July 23, 2024, order on application according R 262A RoP, UPC_CFI_240/2023
Restriction to “attorneys eyes only” possible under R 262A RoP, exceptional circumstances required: In the case of protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, the number of persons authorised to have access may not be greater than is necessary to ensure compliance with the principle of a fair trial and the right of the…
-
CD Munich, 23 July, 2023, Order on conclusion of a revocation action by way of settlement, UPC 75/2023, UPC 80/2023
Conclusion of an action by way of settlement without a request according to R. 365.1 RoP possible: The parties may at any time conclude their action by way of settlement which “shall” be confirmed by a decision of the Court, Art. 79 UPCA. R. 365 RoP clarifies that the Court shall confirm the settlement only…
-
Court of Appeal, July 23, 2024, order on appeal, UPC_CoA_177/2024
Application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises implies a request to disclose the report on the outcome: The legitimate purpose of the procedure for the preservation of evidence or the inspection of premises (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 et seq.) includes the use of the evidence to decide whether to initiate proceedings on…
-
LD Duesseldorf, July 22, 2024, Order on a request for confidentiality, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Generally, a confidentiality club shall include at least one natural person from an intervening party: Since the intervener shall be treated as a party in accordance with R. 315.4 RoP (unless otherwise ordered by the Court), on request according to R. 262A a confidentiality club shall comprise at least one natural person from the intervener.…
-
LD Munich, May 27, 2024, Order on request to extend and to shorten a deadline, UPC_CFI_498/2023
It is a reason for a term extension if wrong exhibits to which reference is made in the Statement of claim have been made available via the CMS: According to case law of the Court of Appeals (UPC-CoA_320/2023; APFL_572929/2023) it is sufficient for an extension of the terms for lodging the Statement of Defense, if…
-
CD Munich, 21 September 2023, order rejecting Rule 262.1 (b) RoP request, UPC_CFI_75/2023
Access to all written pleadings and evidence requires a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason: A request according to Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence by a member of the public requires a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason. The reasons to be provided in the request must pertain to the…
-
CD Munich, 20 September 2023, order rejecting Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, UPC_CFI_1/2023
Access to all written pleadings and evidence requires a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason: A request according to Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence by a member of the public requires a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason. The wish of a natural person to form an opinion on the…
-
LD Munich, 19 September 2023, decision and orders on preliminary measures, UPC_CFI_2/2023
Rule 206 RoP only defines formal requirements: The requirements of Rule 206 RoP only need to be formally presented. If any requirement is missing materially, this does not lead to inadmissibility of the request for provisional measures. The material assessement is governed by Rule 211.2 RoP. Rule 206.2(e) RoP does not apply to requests for…
-
LD The Hague, 2 August 2023, order on R.13(q) RoP request, UPC_CFI_239/2023
Translations of documents not required without relevant interests of the parties : The translation of English-language documents into the language of the proceedings is not necessary without interest of the other party in such translations. Division Local Division The Hague UPC number UPC_CFI_239/2023 Type of proceedings Rule 13(q) RoP request Parties Claimants:Plant-e Knowledge B.V.Plant-e B.V.…
-
LD Düsseldorf, 22 June 2023, order of provisional measures, UPC_CFI_177/2023
Provisional measures do not require a “battle-tested” patent: Provisional measures under Art. 62 UPCA do not require a patent for which validity as been previously confirmed in opposition proceedings or national nullity proceedings. The fact that the asserted patent was granted and no opposition or nullity action was filed provides sufficient basis for the validity…