Author: Philipp Bovenkamp
-
LD Mannheim, September 9, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023
If the redactions in Claimant’s reply brief in an infringement action are only subject to the non-technical part, it is not justified to grant the Defendant an extension of two months for filing its rejoinder brief re. this non-technical part starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part…
-
CoA, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_457/2024 and UPC_CoA_458/2024
The possibility that an injunction might be granted by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in infringement proceedings based on a patent that has been upheld in first instance revocation proceedings, but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeal proceedings.: The two Defendants in…
-
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_165/2024 and UPC_CFI_166/2024
Existence of infringement is assessed on the basis of UPC law without recourse to national patent law: Art. 25 UPCA (right to prevent the direct use of the invention) constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA (provisional and protective measures) uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws so that these…
-
LD Paris, 24 July 2024, Procedural order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_440/2023
Pendency of an action: The pendency of an action is determined by the date of the registration with the Division concerned – in other words, the pendency of an action is independent on whether or not the defendant has already accepted service of the statement of a claim. Same parties according to Art. 33 (4)…
-
Central Division, Paris Seat, 19 July 2024, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_255/2023
Concurrent pendency of invalidity proceedings before different divisions and criteria for exercising the Court’s discretion, Art. 33 (3) UPCA: In the situation of concurrently pending invalidity attacks by different parties against the same patent before different divisions (here: revocation action before CD and counterclaim(s) for revocation before LD) the local division has a discretion either…
-
LD Milan, 6 June 2024, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_241/2023
Request for information regarding distribution channels: Showing a product at a trade fair in the territory covered by the patent does not automatically create evidence of market entry – burden of proof is with the claimant. A claimant’s request for declaration of defendant’s chain of sale/resale is not justified in case that defendant confirms that…
-
LD Mannheim, 13 June 2024, Order of the Court of first instance, UPC_CFI_219/2023
Extension of time limit (only) for response to redacted FRAND submission: Claimant filed its reply brief with heavy redactions re. the FRAND part. Hence, upon Defendant’s request the deadline for filing its rejoinder brief was extended as it relates to these redactions. However, as the parts re. infringement and validity of the patent were not…
-
LD Munich, 12 June 2024, Order of the Court of first instance, UPC_CFI_54/2024
Change of language of proceedings upon (unobjected) request: In the absence of an objection from the opposing party, the language of the proceedings shall be changed from German to English, i.e. the language in which the patent at issue has been granted. There was no request that existing pleadings and other documents should be translated.…
-
LD Hamburg, 4 June 2024, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_54/2023
In relation to the proprietor of a European patent there is a rebuttable presumption pursuant to R. 5(a) and (c) that the person shown in the patent register is the actual proprietor of the patent: Nevertheless, the person shown in the register can be ordered to produce evidence according to R. 190 RoP in order…
-
Court of Appeal, 4 June 2024, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_79/2024
Art. 83(3) UPCA must be interpreted such that a valid opt out application requires that it is lodged by or on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of a European patent: According to R.5.1(b) RoP an opt-out must be made in relation to all national parts of an EP patent. In addition, …
-
LD Munich, 18 January 2024, Order of court of first instance, UPC_CFI_9/2023
Admissibility of extending the action by including claims from a further patent-in-suit after terminated limitation proceedings: The requirements for an extension of the complaint by including claims from a further patent-in-suit are exclusively subject to Rule 263 RoP and not to national provisions. In the present case the plaintiff waited for the outcome of the…
-
CD Munich, 31 January 2024, Order 103 RoP / 105.5 RoP, UPC_CFI_252/2024
Admissibility of auxiliary requests: Claimant requested to limit the submission of auxiliary requests for the further course of proceedings. The court does not see a legal basis for pre-emptively and categorially ruling out the submission of any further auxiliary requests. Nor does the Court see any legal basis to order the Defendant to make the…
-
Luxembourg Court of Appeal, 18 January 2024, Order of Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_4/2024
Orders given pursuant to Rules 360, 361 and 362 RoP: Under Rule 363.2 of the Rules of Procedure, orders given pursuant to Rules 360, 361 and 362 of the Rules of Procedure are final decisions within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure. An order pursuant to Rule 360 of the Rules…
-
LD The Hague, 17 January 2024, Procedural order of court of first instance, UPC_CFI_239/2023
Calculation and extension of deadline to file defence to Counterclaim for revocation: The Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and any Application to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30 RoP must be filed within two months of service of a Statement of defence containing a Counterclaim for revocation. The separate official service of the…
-
LD Munich, 27, December 2023, Order of court in first instance, UPC_CFI_181/2023
Protection of confidential information (keynotes): 1. The protection of confidential information contained in pleadings and annexes can only be requested within a workflow pursuant to Rule 262 and/or 262A of the Rules of Procedure at the same time as the initial filing or within 14 days. 2. Unlike the standard practice in national proceedings in…
-
CD Munich, December 28, 2023, Preliminary Order, UPC_CFI_75/2023
Request under Rule 262.1(b) can be stayed if Court considers the outcome of appeal proceedings in a different case highly likely to be of relevance for the decision: Upon request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP of the Applicant to make available all written pleadings and evidence the Court decided to wait for the outcome of appeal…
-
CD Munich, 11 October 2023, procedural order Rule 9 RoP, UPC_CFI_80/2023
Parties are under an obligation to use the CMS and the dedicated workflows in the CMS to file their submissions: Parties are under an obligation to use the CMS and the dedicated workflows in the CMS to file their submissions (see e.g. Rule 4.1 RoP). It is the sole responsibility of the parties that this…