Subsequent request to change original request to amend the patent rejected because of insufficient justification  (Rule 30(2) RoP). Leave to change claim or amend case and application to amend patent can be filed simultaneously in one pleading, especially in a situation, where strict time periods come into play (Rule...

Possible for the parties by mutual agreement to establish an “attorneys’ eyes only’’ restricted-access group for confidential information and exclude access by a natural person from each party, provided that fair trial is not affected. (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secret Directive). Principle of...

Preservation of evidence by an expert appointed by the Court and assisted by a bailiff is not in conflict with French national law and in conformity with Rule 196(5) RoP. Reasonable available evidence of infringement to support order to preserve evidence (article 60(1) UPCA) based on (i) a Novawell commercial brochure...

Court fee of € 11.000 is payable for appeal under Rule 220(1)(a) RoP against an order determining which party is to bear the costs of the proceedings in the context of the dismissal of an application for interim measures under Rule 360 RoP. (Rule 228 RoP). In the absence of a specific fee, the fee is to be paid for the...

Interest of the plaintiff regarding further costs for cost assessment procedure does not generally outweigh the interest of the successful party within the meaning of Rule 151 RoP in a quick decision on the costs of the proceedings. Suspensive effect also not justified because if there are errors in the appealed order...

It is, on the balance of probability, more likely than not that the subject-matter will prove to be obvious  (article 56 EPC) Likely that for a person skilled in the art at the priority date of the patent at issue, after successful application of an in vitro multiplex method for the detection of ASMs, the next step was...

 At this stage of the proceedings, the parties have already taken all procedural steps and all costs have already been incurred by the parties. If the decision or order affects the bankruptcy estate, it does not differ from the effect that a decision or order issued before the declaration of bankruptcy would have had...

Application to change the language of the proceedings between two US litigants from German to the English language in which the patent was granted to English not granted (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 323 RoP). No detailed information or relevant data in support of the assertion that Applicant is entitled to calcification as...

Ex officio order judge-rapporteur to extend deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim for revocation and to reunite the claim and counterclaim workflows (Rule 9(3 RoP, Rule 311(1) RoP, Rule 334(a) RoP). Defence to the counterclaim for revocation not filed together with Reply to defence in the claim as required by Ru...

Leave to amend the action to include claims of additional patent after the conclusion of limitation proceedings related thereto as granted by judge-rapporteur confirmed by the panel (Rule 263 RoP, Article 105a EPC). Rule 263 RoP leave to change claim or amend case is a procedural order to be made by the judge...

Defendant’s request for security for costs (“cautio iudicatum solvi”) rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA; Rule 158 RoP, Article 24 UPCA). Protecting the rights of the defendant should be balanced against the right of the claimant to enforce its patent rights. The main rationale for the cautio is to secure the enforceability...

Preliminary injunction and provisional measures denied: no infringement. Application to opt-out (6 July 2023) is ineffective after commencement of the action before the Court (27 June 2023) (Rule 5(6) RoP). The blocking mechanism means that the jurisdiction of the UPC can no longer be withdrawn. Request for interim...

Panel decides to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of procedural expediency and avoids the risk of delay that might bhttps://www.ippt.eu/legal...

Free movement of goods precludes that the burden of proof concerning exhaustion of the right conferred by a Union trade mark rests solely on the defendant in the infringement proceedings where the goods bearing that mark - which are not labelled in such a way as to enable third parties to identify the target market and...

Confidential submission of SEP Patent Licenses. There is typically a recognisable need for confidentiality of business-related information contained in licence agreements and only permit submission upon a court order, which may require involving the respective license agreement partner in the proceedings. Incremental...

Incremental procedure for protection of confidential information in the Rule 262A CMS workflow, grants provisional secrecy protection. Both a redacted and unredacted version of the documents concerned need to be uploaded in the CMS and at the same time file a secrecy protection request for these documents via the...

Alternative method of service of Statement of claim requires an unsuccessful attempt (Rule 275 RoP). Court cannot designate someone as a person authorised to accept service for a defendant. Alternative method of service of a statement of claim always requires an actual (“real”) but unsuccessful attempt of service, not...

Alternative method of service of Statement of claim (Rule 275 RoP). Contrary to the opinion of the Munich Local Court, Rule 275.2 RoP cannot be interpreted in principle as permitting service without first having attempted service in accordance with the provisions applicable to service abroad.

An impossibility or an extreme difficulty to meet the deadline which is attributable to the party requesting the extension of the deadline or its representative does not come into consideration, as it may not be deemed as objective. Principle of fair trial obliges a party to submit a request for time extension as soon...

Requirement of “rapid decision” not fulfilled in the absence of a concrete expectation for a EPO decision in the near future evaluated together with the expected date of the current proceedings, that can be estimated in approximately one year since the lodging of the claim. (Rule 295(1)(a) RoP, Article 33 (10) UPCA)