LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_127/2024

The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged. In this case, the court identified arguments both for and against seperation. While the proceedings against some defendants were more advanced than against others, the court ultimately decided against separation.

The court considers factors such as whether the claims involve the same attacked embodiment and whether the defendants are alleged to have collaborated in the infringement.

Here, the claims against all defendants concerned the same allegedly attacked embodiment, and the claimant argued that the defendants collaborated in distributing the allegedly attacked products. This interconnectedness led the court to conclude that a joint trial would be more efficient. Joint hearings ensure consistent decisions and avoid the risk of contradictory rulings.

While acknowledging that delays in litigation can be disadvantageous, the court emphasized that parties must bear the consequences of their own procedural errors.

The court found that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the claimant’s initial error of suing a non-existent entity. Therefore, the claimant had to accept the consequences of this error, and the delay did not constitute an unfair disadvantage.