After leave granted to amend the case by Order of 11 December 2023 by including a second patent, the defendants may comment on the question whether the two patents  are to be heard in separate proceedings (Rule 302(1) RoP). The legal hearing to be granted to the defendants can be granted most clearly within the CMS by...

Leave to amend the case by including a second (related) patent (EP 3678321) (Rule 263 RoP). The requirements for a refusal of admission are not met. The court is convinced that the amendment in question could not have been made earlier with due diligence. If both patents are jointly managed within the same infringement...

Notification by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 20(2) RoP)  that a Preliminary objection is to be dealt with in the main proceedings is not subject to review by the panel (Rule 333(1)) RoP). The judge-rapporteur decides on this inadmissible application because of the objective of procedural economy, in particular the...

Procedural order (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). The start of the plaintiff’s time period for lodging the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation is set for 8 November 2023 in line with the time limit for the Reply to the Statement of defence in the infringement action. This request had to be complied with, as such...

Separate infringement proceedings ordered for two different patents (Rule 302 RoP), no separate proceedings for the two different defendants (Rule 303 RoP). The patents in dispute can each be challenged in terms of their legal status. As a result, a different course of proceedings is possible and not unlikely. The...

The local division proceeds with both the action for infringement and with the counterclaim for revocation (article 33(3)(a) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity appears to make sense for reasons of efficiency alone. It is also advantageous in terms...

Final order based on agreement by the parties regarding Service of Statement of claim by alternative method deemed accepted (Rule 275 RoP); Extension of time to file Statement of defence granted (Rule 9 RoP).  The agreement between the parties on the […] procedural issues is procedurally efficient and reasonable and...

Preliminary order: Service of Statement of claim by alternative method (Rule 275 RoP); Extension of time to file Statement of defence (Rule 9 RoP). The Court is of the opinion that the most efficient and economically sensible course of action in the present case would be for the present counsel for Defendants 3,4,5,6,9...

The applicable national law determines whether the grant or the termination of a licence to use a national trade mark or an EU trade mark held in joint proprietorship requires an unanimous decision by the joint proprietors or a decision by a majority of them

Claim for infringement of a national trademark and the counterclaim for the invalidation of the EU trademark MULTISELECT. Procedural law applicable to similar legal actions concerning a national trademark. Principle of procedural autonomy. A Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark may relate to...

Visibility of a design (underside of a saddle) which constitutes a component part of a complex product (bicycle) during normal of use of that complex product (article 3 Design-directive). The requirement of ‘visibility’ must be assessed in the light of a situation of normal use of that complex product, so that the...

Design law The assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated solely by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, must be made having regard to all of the objective circumstances relevant to each case, inter alia (i) those dictating the choice of features of appearance...

If a Member State complies with the obligation under Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement to criminalise intentional trade mark or copyright infringement, that Member State is implementing European Union law so that the Charter applies (Article 51 Charter). The principle of legalisation of offences and penalties (Article...

Recurring penalty payments not subject to enforcement requirements under national law nor notification by the claimant (Article 82(4) UPCA, Rule 118(8) RoP, Rule 354 RoP). Dual purpose penalty payment.

Workflows.  According to Rule 4.2 RoP, the parties are required to use official forms provided online, including the various workflows, such as, for instance, for the main proceedings, for Rule 262 RoP or Rule 262A RoP. Within these workflows, no further applications are to be submitted that are assigned to other...

The start of the time limit of two months for responding to the Statement of Defence which includes a Counterclaim for revocation (Rule 29a RoP) is to be set on the date of the conclusion of the R. 262A proceedings, i.e. 8 November 2023. Opposing party to be heard on synchronizing time limit for replying to the nullity...

Ordered before the conclusion of the written procedure (i) to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity and

(ii) to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge (article 33(3)(a) UPCA, Rule 37 RoP).

Revocation action currently not stayed because of "rapid decision expected from the EPO", but continued at least until the interim conference which is to be held on 14 March 2024 (article 33(10) UPCA, Rule 295(a) RoP)).

Inter parties and public acces restricted to confidential commercial information (Rule 262A RoP & Rule 262 RoP). Unrestricted access not necessary to understand Claimant’s legal position.

Article 32(a) UPCA confers jurisdiction on the UPC to determine damages only after a prior action for patent infringement has been brought before a chamber of the UPC.