Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
CoA, November 27, 2024, Order on a request for discretionary review of an order on security for costs (R.220.3 RoP), UPC_CoA_651/2024
With this order, the Court of Appeal allows leave to appeal on the question whether the judge-rapporteur can decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal.: In the case at hand, the Mannheim Local Division ordered, with reference to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, Claimant Total Semiconductor to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 21, 2024, decision on a request for a stay of proceedings, UPC_CoA_511/2024
Stay of proceedings is possible even if no final decision in Opposition is expected: Pursuant to Art. 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, the Court may stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO where a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. These provisions…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 21, 2024, Order, UPC_CoA_456/2024
Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” requiring a party to apply for leave under R. 263 RoP. : A case is amended when the nature or scope of the dispute changes. For example, in an infringement case, this occurs if the plaintiff invokes a different patent or objects to a different…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 12, 2024, order concerning the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (Art. 83 UPCA), UPC_CoA_489/2023, UPC_CoA_500/2023
If a patent has been opted out of the jurisdiction of the UPC, this opt-out can only be validly withdrawn, if no action according to Art. 32 UPCA concerning the relevant patent has commenced at a national court since June 1, 2023: The term “action” in Art. 83 UPCA refers not only to infringement and…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.