Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, March 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_523/2024
Price erosion is an important factor to be considered when evaluating the necessity of provisional measures. : A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion. This risk…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 19, 2025, order on release of cost security, UPC_CoA_217/2024
R. 352.2 RoP is applied by way of analogy with regard to the release of security for legal costs.: R. 352.2 RoP directly concerns the release of a security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in a case in which security for legal costs has been deposited and afterwards the action…
1 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, February 14, 2025, order on request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_382/2024
Claim construction regarding means-plus-function features.: Means-plus-function features must be understood as any feature suitable for carrying out the function (headnote 1, para. 47). Added matter assessment.: General provisions: The Court must ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using their common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 12, 2025, Order concerning representation, UPC_CoA_634/2024, UPC_CoA_635/2024, UPC_CoA_636/2024
Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC.: All applicants of any application or action under the UPCA and RoP are required to be represented, except if the RoP waive the requirement of representation. An applicant under R. 262.1(b)…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, February 12, 2025, order for the protection of confidential information UPC_CoA_621/2024
Pursuant to R. 262A.6 RoP the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the rights of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 11, 2025, Appeal of a Panel Review Order regarding right to represent, UPC_CoA_563/2024, APL_53716/2024
Representation of parties in proceedings before the UPC, Art. 48 UPCA: No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 15, 2025 order concerning the need to adjudicate UPC_CoA_584-2024
No need to adjudiacte also when appeal has become devoid of purpose: R.360 RoP applies not only when the action itself has become devoid of purpose, but also when the appeal has become devoid of purpose. According to R.360 RoP the Court may at any time, on the application of a party or its own…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 15, 2025, order on withdrawal, UPC_CoA_629/2024
Withdrawal of the action during appeal proceedings possible: After the first instance infringement decision was appealed, the decision on withdrawal is within the competence of the CoA. According to R. 265.1 RoP, the decision of the first instance is not final. Therefore, admissibility of the withdrawal of the infringment action is not precluded during appeal.…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 14, 2024, order on panel review, UPC_CoA_651/2024
Order on security is case management and open for panel review (R. 333 RoP): Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel. There is a broad scope for review of actions of the judge-rapporteur, as laid down…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 9, 2025, order concerning public access to the register, UPC_CoA_480/2024; UPC_CoA_481/2024
Public has a right to access court records: This right is enshrined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP and promotes transparency and trust in the court system. The Court of Appeal emphasized that this right allows the public to understand court decisions and scrutinize the court’s handling of disputes. The Appellant argued against public access, claiming it…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 8, 2025, order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_621/2024
Timing and grounds of an intervention (Rule 313 RoP): An application to intervene may be lodged at any stage of the proceedings by any person establishing a legal interest in the result of an action. An application to intervene shall only be admissible if it is made before the closure of the written procedure unless…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, December 23, 2024, oder concerning an application for a discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP)
Unconditional right to limit claims for damages (R. 263.3 RoP): An unconditional application to reduce the amount of damages claimed shall be considered as an unconditional application under Rule 263.3 RoP. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted. Procedure for determining the value of the action (R. 22, 104,…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, December 17, 2024, Application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_810/2024
Suspensive Effect of Appeal: The primary legal issue revolves around the suspensive effect of an appeal, specifically under Rule 223.4 RoP, which allows for suspensive effect in cases of extreme urgency. Requirement of Extreme Urgency: The Court emphasized that the applicant must demonstrate the existence of an extreme urgency to justify suspensive effect. In this…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, December 10, 2024, revocation of an order, UPC_CoA_470/2023
The revocation under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP of an order of the Court of FirstInstance granting a provisional injunction will, as a general rule, have retroactive effect: As the decision of the CoA to revoke a first instance order means that the CoA finds this order should not have been made. Therefore…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, December 3, 2024, appeal decision on request for preliminary measures, UPC_CoA_297/2024
When the Court adjudicates on an application for provisional measures pursuant to R. 211.2 RoP in conjunction with Art. 62(4) UPCA, a sufficient degree of certainty (see also Art. 9(3) Directive 2004/48/EC) requires that the court considers on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not, that the Applicant is entitled to…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 28, 2024, status as micro-enterprise, UPC_CoA_490/2024
Demonstrating status as a micro-enterprise: The Court of Appeal denied the request to waive the order to pay the regular court fee plus an additional fee of 50 % of the regular fee. The Appellant argued initially to be a micro-enterprise; then corrected its status to small enterprise. The Appellant failed to provide documentary evidence…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 29, 2024, order on relevant criteria for security for costs (R.158 RoP), UPC_CoA_548/2024
When deciding on a request for security for costs– failing any guarantees or other special circumstances, it is not relevant whether the claimant belongs to a – financially sound – group of companies. It is only the financial position of the claimant itself that is relevant;– it is not relevant whether a claimant is willing…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.