Topics: service
-
LD Hamburg, April 18, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_169/2024
All service outside the contracting member states is covered by section 2, i.e. Rules 273 and 274 RoP.: If defendants are domiciled outside the territory of the contracting member states of the UPCA and have no statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business nor their own permanent or temporary place of business within…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 22 January 2024, order, UPC_CFI_308/2023
Background of the case: The applicant filed a revocation action against the patent at issue. On 27 November 2023, the respondent submitted a defence to revocation which was considered by as incomplete the Registry. Consequently, on 11 December 2023, the respondent requested to correct the detected deficiencies, by logding a corrected statement of defence which…
3 min Reading time→ -

Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, 13 October 2023, order of the court of appeal, UPC_CoA_320/2023
Effective service of the statement of claim does not require that exhibits are included: Only those exhibits that are essential for understanding the subject matter and the cause of action must be served on the defendant together with the statement of claim (and translated if necessary). Rule 270 RoP provides that the Regulation (EU) 2020/1784…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 27 September 2023, procedural order, UPC_CFI_5/2023
Requirements of service by an alternative method: Alternative service (R. 275.2 RoP) is also possible if an attempt of service pursuant R. 270 to 274 RoP has not yet been completed. “Attention” can be assumed under R. 275.2 RoP if either a legal relationship exists in which knowledge is attributed or if specific circumstances exist…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 17 July 2023, order re. separation of the proceedings, UPC_CFI 14_2023
Proceedings against various defendants can be separated, if service on one defendant takes longer than service on the other defendants.: One of four defendants refused electronic service, while the other three defendants accepted electronic service. The Reporting Judge indicated that the consequence of later service on the last defendant could significantly delay the proceedings and…
3 min Reading time→

Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.
