Key takeaways
Application of Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation concerning lis pendens
The CoA found that Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply during the transitional period defined in Article 83 UPCA, even if national proceedings commenced before this period. This interpretation aims to prevent conflicting decisions arising from parallel proceedings before the UPC and national courts.
Stay of the proceedings under Art. 30 Brussels I recast Regulation or, alternatively, under Rule 295(m) RoP
The Court of Appeal emphasized that even if Art. 30 of the Brussels I recast Regulation did not apply, Rule 295(m) RoP would alternatively require a stay of proceedings in the interests of the proper administration of justice.
Interpretation of “same parties” in Art. 29 Brussels I recast Regulation
The Court clarified that having separate legal entities within the same group, like Nokia Technology and Nokia Solutions in this case, means the requirement of “same parties” for declining jurisdiction under Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation is not met.
Division
Court of Appeal
UPC number
APL_26889/2024
UPC_CoA_227/2024
Type of proceedings
Appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance on a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings.
Parties
Appellant (Defendant in the main proceedings): Mala Technologies Ltd.
Respondent (Claimant in the main proceedings): Nokia Technology GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 2 044 709
Jurisdictions
Unified Patent Court and German Federal Court of Justice (BGH)
Body of legislation / Rules
Article 83 UPCA
Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation
Rule 19 and Rule 295(m) RoP
