Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » LD Düsseldorf, 4 December 2023, court order on separation of proceedings, UPC_CFI_363/2023

LD Düsseldorf, 4 December 2023, court order on separation of proceedings, UPC_CFI_363/2023

Rebekka Jeschke

3 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

A separation of proceedings according to R. 302.1 RoP is sensible and appropriate when dealing with a plurality of patents.

✓

The two patents-in-suit may be attacked in respective nullity proceedings which may result in differing timelines of the proceedings. A separation of proceedings should therefore be ordered at an early stage.

There is no need for a separation of proceedings according to R. 303.2 RoP in case of a plurality of defendants but the same attacked embodiment.

✓

Synergy effects in claim construction and infringement issues should be acknowledged and utilised.

Submissions on the provisionally determined value in dispute can still be filed after the separation of the proceedings, provided that this has been reserved.

✓

The original proceedings remain decisive for the time of the pendency of the separated proceedings and the service of the Statement of Claim.

✓

Division

Local Division Düsseldorf

UPC number

UPC_CFI_363/2023

Type of proceedings

Infringement action

Parties

Claimant: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

Defendants: 1. expert e-Commerce GmbH 2. expert klein GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 3 926 698 B1

EP 3 223 320 B1

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 302.1 RoP

R. 302.2 RoP

R. 303.2 RoP

2023-12-04_LD Düsseldorf UPC_CFI 363-2023 ORD_589353-2023 ACT_579244-2023_anonymizedDownload

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • Munich Local Division

    LD Munich, March 11, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_201/2024

    Timely lodging of statement of claim upon order of provisional measures: payment of court fees relevant (not timing of receipt): The applicant of provisional measures has to “start proceedings on the merits” of the case within 31 calendar days (or 20 working days, whichever is longer) from the date specified in the Court’s order (R. …
    →
  • Mannheim Local Division

    LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, orders, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024

    If infringement proceedings are ready for decision with regard to single national parts, decision should not be withheld if this would delay enforcement: This decision has gained relevance in light of the recent decisions on the long-arm jurisdiction (cf. CJEU, BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22); UPC LD Dusseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023) according to which the …
    →
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, March 4, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_468/2024, UPC_CFI_687/2024

    Referral of Counterclaim for Revocation (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP): The Local Division Düsseldorf referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division in Milan. The Parties had unanimously requested the, and requests by all parties will be granted unless strongcounterarguments require a different decision (UPC_CFI 14/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 2 February2024 – …
    →

Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field