Author: Maximilian Vieweg
-
LD Munich, December 18, 2024, withdrawal of opt-out, exhaustion, and FRAND defense, UPC_CFI_9/2023
Withdrawal of opt-out effective if CMS workflow is used: The Court held that Claimant’s withdrawal of the opt-out was effective as Claimant used the online workflow in the Case Management System (CMS) according to Rule 5.7 RoP. It is not mandatory to use the provided template which is merely a non-binding support tool. The withdrawal…
-
LD Paris, December 19, 2024, Order, UPC_CFI_358/2023
No Stay of Execution from the Court of First Instance: The Court rejected Claimant’s request for a stay of enforcement of its first instance decision during the appeal period as this decision is solely subject to the competence of the Court of Appeal according to Art. 74 UPCA and Rule 223 RoP. In such a…
-
CD Paris, December 18, 2024, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_454/2023
Standstill provisions do not impact UPC’s jurisdiction: Even if a standstill provision requiring pre-suit notification is breached, this does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction or the admissibility of the action. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), but that such…
-
CoA Luxembourg, December 17, 2024, Application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_810/2024
Suspensive Effect of Appeal: The primary legal issue revolves around the suspensive effect of an appeal, specifically under Rule 223.4 RoP, which allows for suspensive effect in cases of extreme urgency. Requirement of Extreme Urgency: The Court emphasized that the applicant must demonstrate the existence of an extreme urgency to justify suspensive effect. In this…
-
CD Munich, December 17, 2024, Order, UPC 252/2023
Release of Security for Costs Requires Independent Financial Standing: The UPC held that R. 352.2 RoP also applies to the release of a security for legal costs, even though this is not explicitly mentioned in Rule 158 RoP, which governs the imposition of such securities. The Court ultimately rejected Claimant’s request to release the security…
-
CD Milan, October 1, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_380/2024
High threshold for intervention in interim injunction proceedings: The Court rejected the request (here: from Menarini) for intervention, emphasizing that Article 313 RoP permits intervention in interim injunction proceedings only under exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that a third party might be affected by the outcome of the proceedings is not sufficient. Rather, the third…
-
LD Munich, October 2, 2024, Substantive Order, UPC_CFI_153/2024
Patent pool administrators have a direct legal interest in litigations concerning patents within their pools: The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit. This interest stems from…
-
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2024, Ordner in relation to R. 220.3 RoP and deadlines in R29(d) RoP, UPC_CoA_543/2024
Deadlines when Confidential Information are included: This decision clarifies that the deadline for a Defendant’s reply (in German “Duplik”) under Rule 29(d) RoP, when confidential information is involved, begins upon filing the initial Plaintiff’s reply, even if redacted. The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging differing practices across Local Divisions, found no misinterpretation of the RoP…