Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » CoA, October 15, 2024, order re. appeal against procedural order, CoA_PC_01/2024

CoA, October 15, 2024, order re. appeal against procedural order, CoA_PC_01/2024

3 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The Court emphasized that leave to appeal against a procedural order must be explicitly granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) under Article 73 UPCA and Rule 220.2 RoP. The CFI’s general statement referencing Rule 220.2 RoP (“subject to appeal under the conditions laid down by the provisions of R. 220.2 RoP”) was insufficient. Explicit language such as “leave to appeal is granted” is necessary.

The appeal was declared inadmissible due to the absence of explicitly granted leave to appeal by the Court of first instance, consistent with the Court’s previous ruling in Abbott v Dexcom (UPC_CoA_5/2024, PR_APL_189/2024). This decision reinforces the importance of procedural precision in appeals before the UPC.

The Court found it unnecessary to hear the parties at an oral hearing, as this issue falls within the scope of the examination referred to in Rule 229 RoP.

Division

CoA

UPC number

CoA_PC 01/2024

Type of proceedings

Appeal against procedural order

Parties

Appellant (Intervener in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): Photon Wave Co, Ltd

Respondent (Claimant in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd

Patent(s)

EP 3 404 726

Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 73 UPCA; R. 220 RoP, R. 229 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