Key takeaways
During the written procedure, Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP give the Court a possibility to stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO if a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO
The Court must respect the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy and a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time, and shall ensure that the final oral hearing will normally take place within one year (UPC_CoA_22/2024, 2024.05.28). For these reasons, the Court will normally not stay proceedings when a final decision by the EPO is not expected to be given rapidly. This main rule applies even if there is a high likelihood that the relevant claims of the patent will be held to be invalid (as argued by the Defendants).
Rule 118.2(b) RoP, which includes an obligation to stay proceedings in certain situations, only applies during the oral procedure; this follows from the title of Rule 118 (“Decision on the merits”) and the fact that it is placed in the Chapter of the RoP governing the oral procedure
An application to stay proceedings based on Article 33(3) (b) UPCA may be dismissed if submitted
before the local or regional division where no one has proposed bifurcation
A decision to stay the proceedings in accordance with the auxiliary request, which is based on Article 33(3) UPCA, can only be made if the Regional Division decides to bifurcate the
proceedings and refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division of the UPC. In the present case, bifurcation was not suggested by either party, and the Court had no intention to bifurcate on its own initiative. Therefore, the request was dismissed. The submission of unnecessary applications shall be discouraged. However, the Court noted that the Defendants may raise this question again when they are given an opportunity to comment on how to proceed with respect to the application of Article 33(3) UPCA, in accordance with Rule 37 RoP.
Division
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
UPC number
UPC_CFI_380/2023
Type of proceedings
Infringement Action
Parties
Applicants / Defendants in infringement suit:
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
MERIL GMBH
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ
SORMEDICA, UAB
INTERLUX, UAB
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
Respondent / Claimant in infringement suit
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Patent(s)
EP3769722
Body of legislation / Rules
Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP; Rule 118.2(b) RoP; Article 33(3) (b) UPCA
