Bifurcation: parties agree and most practical solution (Article 33(3) UPCA). As the oral hearing is already scheduled by the Central Division – and its date is approaching within the next two to three months – a referral of the counterclaim to the Central Division appears to be the most practical solution to avoid...

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Revocation action unfounded, patent infringed. Direct infringement of product claim (Article 25(a) UPCA) even though voice control feature requires activation. If a device in the offered or offered or sold is not yet suitable for making use of all the features of...

Instead of staying the proceedings, the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaims is extended to 27.2.2025 (R. 9 RoP, R. 295 RoP) because of oral hearing in the EPO appeals proceedings scheduled for 13 February 2025: allows for a more overall procedural efficiency, on one hand not staying this...

Confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP). Witness's personal details and copy of his passport do not qualify as confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The witness's personal data are protected against disclosure to third parties by the mechanism provided for in Rule 262 RoP. Remaining information qualifies as...

The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a national court - before entry into force of the UPCA - has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages (Article 32(1) UPCA). The...

No suspensive effect of appeal justified (R. 223 RoP, R. 25 RoP) by (i) a judgement to be expected ‘very soon’ in parallel proceedings, to which Bhagat is not a (intervening) party, and (ii) an unsubstantiated statement that there are “considerable doubts” as to the validity of the patent while no counterclaim for...

Justified to allow discretionary review in appeal of orders of the judge-rapporteur (absent panel review) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The question whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal is an access to justice issue which the Court of Appeal can raise...

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Proceedings have been stayed as agreed by the parties until the date of the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO (R. 295 RoP). Panel review of order of judge-rapporteur to limit the number of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number (R. 30 RoP, R. 333...

Parties’ request for a 50% increase in the ceiling for representation cost denied (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). No particularly complex case; pre-trial settlement costs not considered; each party owes € 7,500 euros in legal costs.

Withdrawal of the provisional measures; each party shall bear its own costs,  Security released (R. 265 RoP,  R 158 RoP)  and 
Withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation; each party shall bear its own costs, 40% of court fees reimbursed  

No legal basis for interest on reimbursable legal costs and other expenses (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.2 RoP). A corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP, which govern the procedure for setting damages and compensation and expressly provide for interest, is ruled out. No provision for judge-rapporteur to grant...

Withdrawal of the action by agreement; no need for cost decision, 20% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

Withdrawal of application for access to pleadings and evidence. No reimbursement of legal costs (R. 265 RoP). There is no legal basis for ordering a member of the public, who has made a request for access to written pleadings and evidence, to reimburse legal costs incurred by the parties to the relevant proceedings...

Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Withdrawal of counterclaim for revocation and counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Analogous...

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the...

Withdrawal of appeal by party agreement (R. 265 RoP). No need for cost decision as both parties waive a decision on costs and the application for a cost decision before the Hamburg Local Division has been withdrawn. The withdrawal of the revocation counterclaim has the effect that the requests for amendment of the...

The withdrawal of the application for interim measures possible (R. 265 RoP, R. 212 RoP), since unserved ex parte order of 9 December 2024  prior to final decision upon review of granted ex parte order of 9 December 2024 is not a decision terminating the proceedings as the time limit for review has not yet begun to run...

Withdrawal of action upon application by Valeo (holder of preliminary injunction) with the consent of the appellant (Magna) (R. 265 RoP). In view of Magna’s consent, Magna cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. No need for a decision on costs: parties have agreed...

Withdrawal parties bearing own costs (R. 265 RoP). No partial reimbursement of court fees applied for (R. 370.RoP). The decision follows the parties’ jointly expressed will. Insofar as R. 265.2 (c) RoP requires a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the decision takes into account the agreement...