Plaintiffs were only able to discuss the statement of defence due to confidentiality restrictions with the confirmed group of recipients without restriction at all from 15 January 2024 onwards.. This information is undoubtedly an integral part of the statement of defence.

Public access to register requires representation (Rule 8 RoP, Rule 262 RoP, Article 47 UPCA, Article 48 UPCA). ‘Parties’ requiring representation pursuant to Rule 8(1) RoP encompasses also (i) a third party affected by an order or decision such as a third party under Rule 190 RoP and (ii) a member of the public under ...

Request, with the consent of the parties, to assign an additional technically qualified judge to the panel  for provisional measures application (article 8(5) UPCA). Appropriate because of the requested provisional measures, which requires examining reasonable doubts as to the validity of the patent in the technically...

Request at panel’s initiative for a technically qualified judge in provisional measures proceedings (Rule 211(2) RoP, Article 8(5) UPCA, Article 62(4) UPCA). Sensible and advisable to also involve technically qualified judge already in the present proceedings because the respondents deal extensively with the legal...

Ex parte provisional injunction under penalty of € 10.000 per product or € 30.000 per day and order to hand over devices, all subject to a security of € 500.000. Order to be served by claimant’s counsel. Direct use of the invention (article 25 UPCA). Element of suppression (“Unterdrückung”) is fulfilled. The...

A decision by the judge-rapporteur granting a preliminary objection that the UPC lacks competence cannot be reviewed by the full panel on the basis of Rule 333 RoP, but may be appealed to the Court of Appeal as a final decision of the Court of First Instance (Rule 21.1 RoP, Rule 220(1)(a) RoP) 
Rule 333.1 RoP does not...

Discrepancy in the fines (€ 50.000 v € 250.000) set by the Local Division Paris and the Local Division Munich for breach of confidentiality orders (Rule 262 RoP, Rule 262A RoP) in parallel proceedings between the same parties concerning the same protected confidential information regarding two different patents No...

IPPT20240124, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Requested leave to appeal confidentiality order by judge-rapporteur not admissible, until that  order has first been reviewed by the panel in the pending review procedure (Rule 220(2) RoP, Rule 333(1) RoP). (See also: IPPT20240111, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei)  

Separate CMS workflow for review of ex parte provsional measure. Defendant’s request for review of an ex parte provisional measure (Rule 212(3) RoP) is to be resubmitted in the appropriate separate workflow provided by the CMS. The re-upload is for purely technical reasons, without affecting the time of receipt of the...

Order after interim conference (Rule 105(5) RoP). Later filed amendments, auxiliary requests (Rule 30(2) RoP, Rule 50(2) RoP). Front loaded proceedings and late filing (Rule 263 RoP). Value of the proceeding for recoverable costs (Rule 104(j) RoP,  Rule 152.3 RoP). Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (article 69...

(Rule 104 RoP, Rule 105(5) RoP). Hearing held via video conference before the judge-rapporteur together with two other members of the panel: determining the date at which the written procedure ends, confirming the date of the oral hearing, setting deadlines for submissions, ordering the parties to submit a preliminary...

The judge-rapporteur is not to inform a party (even upon request) of the exact deadline provided for by statutory rules before its expires, nor to give the interpretation of statutory provisions or the assessment of facts during the course of a proceedings where it may be helpful to one of the parties. (Rule 9 RoP)...

No automatic right for Claimant to reply to Rejoinder by Defendant (Rule 12 RoP, Rule 43 RoP). Generally, fixed framework of written submissions and front-loaded character of the UPC proceedings designed to conduct UPC proceedings in an efficient, proportionate, fair and equitable way. Request allowable: a bona fide...

Extension of time period for lodging Reply extended by one week until 15 January 2024. The written reasons for the nullity judgment of the Bundespatentgericht of 9 August 2023 were only served on 22 December 2023 and a precise analysis of the reasons for the judgment was made difficult by the Christmas holidays...

Deadline for commenting on provisional dates for interim conference extended as the overall handling of the case will not be affected at all or not much by granting the extension. Plaintiff rightfully pointed out that it should not take 21 days to agree on dates for an oral hearing, not even during holiday season. And...

IPPT20240120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce
Extending time periods  (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP) only to be used with caution and only justified in exceptional cases (see: UPC_CFI_475/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), Anordnung v. 19. Januar 2024). No exceptional case: that access to the CMS was not possible "over...

Extending time periods (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP) only to be used with caution and only justified in exceptional cases. Exceptional case: action directed against 15 defendants of which, to date, only three have been served; currently not possible to predict how much time serving others will take; willingness for defendants'...

The General Court finds, on the basis of its case-law and adding to it, that a design is declared invalid only in the case where all its characteristics are excluded from protection. In this case, since some of the arguments made by Delta Sport Handelskontor concern only one of the characteristics amongst several...

The trade mark proprietor/court may prohibite a third party from using in the course of trade a sign which is identical or confusingly similar to an EU trade mark, in relation to automotive spare parts (radiator grilles) where that sign constitutes a mounting element for an automotive accessory (an emblem reflecting...

Language of proceedings (German) changed to language of the patent (English) (article 49 UPCA, Rule 323 RoP). It may be sufficient that – amongst all relevant circumstances also to be considered – the language initially chosen is significantly detrimental to the Applicant (UPC CFI 225/2023 LD The Hague, order of 18...