Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
Court of Appeal, October 29, 2024, order, UPC_CoA_549/2024
Order on suspensive effect of appeal if impugned decision is evidently incorrect.: The suspensive effect may be ordered in particular if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently incorrect. Whether there is an evident violation of the law is assessed on the basis of the factual findings and legal considerations that provide…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 21, 2024, Request for submission of new evidence, UPC_CoA_297/2024
New contradictory statements of the other party do not justify the submission of new evidence at appeal stage: Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) grants the Court of Appeal discretion to disregard new evidence not previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. In exercising this discretion, the Court considers: (a) whether the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, October 15, 2024, order re. appeal against procedural order, CoA_PC_01/2024
Express Grant of Leave to Appeal Required: The Court emphasized that leave to appeal against a procedural order must be explicitly granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) under Article 73 UPCA and Rule 220.2 RoP. The CFI’s general statement referencing Rule 220.2 RoP (“subject to appeal under the conditions laid down by the provisions of R. 220.2…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2024, Ordner in relation to R. 220.3 RoP and deadlines in R29(d) RoP, UPC_CoA_543/2024
Deadlines when Confidential Information are included: This decision clarifies that the deadline for a Defendant’s reply (in German “Duplik”) under Rule 29(d) RoP, when confidential information is involved, begins upon filing the initial Plaintiff’s reply, even if redacted. The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging differing practices across Local Divisions, found no misinterpretation of the RoP…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 17, 2024, Order in appeal proceedings against a decision in first instance revocation proceedings, UPC_CoA_227/2024
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…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, September 24, 2024, order on request to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_298/2024, UPC_CoA_299/2024, UPC_CoA_300/2024
Both, claimant and defendant can rely on R. 190.1 RoP to request an order to produce evidence.: In view of the principle of equality of arms, Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190.1 RoP have a broader scope than the initial wording may suggest (evidence in support of its claims). The purpose of these provisions is…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, September 25, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_182/2024
Background and first instance decision: This decision relates to an appeal regarding a decision on provisional measures and, in particular, answers the question whether submissions from the main proceedings (and related counterclaim for revocation) are to be considered during the appeal stage of provisional measures. The first instance had issued a preliminary injunction in ex…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 18, 2024, Order concerning language of proceedings, UPC_CoA_354/2024
Criteria for the decision under Article 49(5) UPCA: Unlike Art. 49(4) UPCA, Art. 49(5) UPCA does not mention convenience as a criteria, only fairness. If a claimant is proficient in English and German, claimant’s choice of German as the language of the proceedings is merely one of convenience and thus not relevant under Art. 49(5)…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 16, 2024, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_301/2024
Late filed requests and duty to provide evidence: The Court of Appeal may decide to disregard late filed requests, facts and evidence even if these were not objected by the other party (Rule 222.2 RoP). The Court of Appeal may exercise its discretion in this respect. When exercising this discretion, it shall take into account…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 18, 2024, order concerning a preliminary objection and a request for an order pursuant to R. 361 RoP, UPC_CoA_265/2024 et. al.
Key Takeaways Referral of certain objections raised with a preliminary objection to the main proceedings can be reasonable: R. 20.2 RoP allows that objections are referred to the main proceedings. An objection to the Court’s jurisdiction for damages suffered in the UK and Northern Ireland can be dealt with in the main proceedings for case…
6 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_217/2024 et. al.
Standard and its application to the case at hand: The Court, when exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, must determine, in light of the facts and arguments brought forward by the parties, whether the financial position of the Claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_457/2024 and UPC_CoA_458/2024
The possibility that an injunction might be granted by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in infringement proceedings based on a patent that has been upheld in first instance revocation proceedings, but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeal proceedings.: The two Defendants in…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_489/2024, ORD_48358/2024
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…
1 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 3, 2024, Order on international jurisdiction and competence, UPC_CoA_188/2024
1) Art. 7(2) in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and the alleged damage may occur…
8 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 5, 2024, Order on connection joinder of proceedings, UPC_CoA_106/2024
A connection joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA.: A joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 5, 2024, Order on application for language change, UPC_CoA_207/2024
The fact that the parties are domiciled in countries where the language of the proceedings chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor in the decision on an application to use the language of the patent as the language of the proceedings.: An important factor is the fact that the claimant…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 26, 2024, Order concerning a request for security for costs of a party in the Court of Appeal, CoA_328_2024
A party can rely on R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP to request the Court of Appeal to order theother party to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurredand/or to be incurred by the requesting party in the appeal proceedings.: Article 69(4) UPCA provides that, at the request of the defendant, the…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.