Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Duesseldorf Local Division » LD Duesseldorf, June 20, 2024, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023

LD Duesseldorf, June 20, 2024, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023

3 min Reading time

Key takeaways

Pursuant to Art. 33(3) UPCA, the LD can exercise its discretion when deciding to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) or to refer the counterclaim for revocation for decision to the central division and suspend or proceed with the action for infringement (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA can make sense in respect to reasons of efficency. Another advantage is that the joint hearing allows a decision to be made on both the question of infringement and validity on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel of judges. Hearing both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation is especially justified if the complexity of the technology at issue is moderate and the number of validity attacks manageable.

The court may decide on the procedure pursuant to Article 33(3) UPCA before the conclusion of the written procedure in accordance with R. 37.2 RoP if it takes into account the parties’ submissions and grants them the right to be heard.

The court indicated this early decision to be justified and necessary due to the current situation at the court. Some judges are currently only employed on a part-time or case-by-case basis. In addition, the panel stated that it appears appropriate for reasons of procedural economy to obtain the assignment of the technically qualified judge at an early stage in order to be able to ensure that the schedule of the technically qualified judge allows him/her to participate in the proceeding.

Division

LD Duesseldorf

UPC number

UPC_CFI_459/2023

Type of proceedings

Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation

Parties

Plaintiff: Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant:

  1. CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co, Ltd
  2. CUPOWER Europe GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 2 011 218

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field