Institutions: Luxembourg Court of Appeal
-
CoA, August 21, 2024, Order on a request for a discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP, UPC_CoA_469/2024
The exclusion of a specific natural person from the confidentiality club in the context of a R. 262.A order requires concrete reasons: The abstract risk that an in-house counsel could breach the confidentiality obligation due to conflicts of interest if the in-house counsel is included in the group of persons entitled to access confidential information…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 21, 2024, order on an application pursuant to R. 9.1 RoP, UPC_CoA_469/2024
R.9.1 RoP cannot be interpreted as giving the parties the right to file motions on their own initiative.: According to R. 9.1 RoP, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, of its own motion or on a reasoned request by a party, make a procedural order such as to order a party to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, August 21, 2024, order on application pursuant to R. 9.1 RoP and summons of the parties to the oral hearing, UPC_CoA_354/2024
An application under R.36 RoP can only be made before the closure of the interim procedure, and further pleadings may only be filed after an application under R. 36 RoP has been made: For the appeal procedure, R.239.2 RoP conclusively determines when the written procedure is completed. As soon as the judge-rapporteur considers the appeal…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 21, 2024, Order concering an application for a discretionary review by the CoA under Rule 220.3 RoP, UPC_CoA_454/2024
An appeal against an order denying a request to reject an action as manifestly bound tofail according to R.361 RoP is admissible under the requirements of R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP: A discretionary review by the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.220.3 RoP is only admissible if leave to appeal against the impugned order is required…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 19, 2024, Decision concerning suspensive effect of appeal against preliminary injunction, UPC_CoA_388/2024
It is not a requirement that a request for suspensive effect is lodged in a separate workflow in theCourt’s case management system: This may be done separately, and is advisable if an order is required urgently. It cannot however be inferred from R.223 RoP that the lodging in a separate workflow is a requirement in…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, July 29, 2024, Order concerning service of a Statement of claim, UPC_CoA_69/2024 & UPC_CoA_70/2024
Service in China or Hong Kong: A defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served a Statement of claim by email to a person who is not authorised to accept service. Neither can such service be made by public service in the form of a written notice to be displayed in the publicly…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, August 8, 2024, service of written pleadings/other documents, UPC_CoA_405/2024
Written pleadings are served by the Registry in the electronic CMS of the Court unless service cannot be effected by means of electronic communication (R. 278.1 and 278.2 RoP): Prior communication between the parties themselves of the written pleadings via another electronic system like the German special electronic lawyer’s mailbox (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach, (beA)) cannot…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, August 6, 2024, order on service, UPC_CoA_205/2024
A defendant company in China cannot, as a starting point, be served a complaint via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State: Service within the Contracting Member States is governed by R. 270 through 272 RoP. Service outside the Contracting Member States is instead governed by R. 273 and 274 RoP.…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, August 5, 2024, order on service of a Statement of Claim on defendants in China and Taiwan, UPC_CoA_183/2024
A defendant company in China or Taiwan cannot be served a complaint via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State: Such a group company cannot automatically be seen as a statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business of a defendant company in China or Hongkong, nor a place where…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, August 5, 2024, order on service in China and Hongkong, UPC_CoA_86/2024
A defendant company in China or Hongkong cannot, as a starting point, be served a complaint via a company within the same group in a Contracting Member State: Service within the Contracting Member States is governed by R. 270 through 272 RoP. Service outside the Contracting Member States is instead governed by R. 273 and…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, July 30, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_405/2024
No shortening of term for response in appeal proceedings due to filing of grounds of appeal prior to end of term or due to contention on a purely legal issue: The arguments that an appeal concerns purely legal issues, the appellant seeks patent protection as soon as possible and the fact that the appellant did…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, July 29, 2024, order on cost application, UPC_CoA_1/2024
Application for cost decision is to be lodged before the court of first instance: Proceedings for a cost decision are to be started before the court of first instance, even if the application relates to costs that accrued in appeal proceedings. The general procedure as provided in R. 150 seqq. RoP is to be followed.…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 23, 2024, order on appeal, UPC_CoA_177/2024
Application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises implies a request to disclose the report on the outcome: The legitimate purpose of the procedure for the preservation of evidence or the inspection of premises (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 et seq.) includes the use of the evidence to decide whether to initiate proceedings on…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 21, 2024, Order on request to stay proceedings, UPC_CoA_227/2024
Stay of proceedings following an appeal only in case of a “reasoned request” : If an appeal is lodged against an order rejecting a preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal may stay the proceedings at first instance on a “reasoned request” by a party (R. 21.2 RoP). A statement which lacks any reasons as to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 20, 2024, Order on application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_234/2024
An order by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 262A RoP also applies to the appeal proceedings : A non-appealed order by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 262A RoP that restricts access to certain information or evidence to specific persons, unless otherwise stated in the order, continues to apply after…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 26, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of an EP under Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC: The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, April 9, 2024, Order concerning clarification of the date of service, UPC_CoA_86/2024
In appeal proceedings the rules concerning service (R. 270-279 RoP) apply mutatis mutandis: In appeal proceedings, Chapter 2 – Service (Rules 270 – 279 RoP) applies mutatis mutandis. Consequently, if R. 271.1 RoP applied during the proceedings at the Court of First Instance (in short: an electronic address for service was provided by the defendant…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.