Key takeaways
Applicant failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP (point 8 of the Preamble of the RoP) or any other objective of the discretionary review procedure. Its contention that the impugned order is incorrect and does not provide a detailed interpretation and subsumption that would allow a generalization of the decision, is not sufficient.
✓
Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_489/2024, ORD_48358/2024, APL_47300/2024
Type of proceedings
Request for a discretionary review, R. 220.3 RoP
Parties
Claimant (and Applicant): Motorola Mobility LLC
Defendant (and Respondent): 1. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2. Ericsson GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 3 342 086
Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 220.3 RoP
