No suspension of the predetermined deadlines written procedure granted (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 29 RoP). The Rules of Procedure do not provide for a suspension of the predetermined deadlines during the written procedure either after the submission of a Procedural Request, or after the submission of a Request for Review by the...

The scope of R. 263 RoP is not limited to the main proceedings. It also applies to applications for provisional measures. The applicant may also apply for leave to change its claim or to amend its case. If the applicant adds a feature which was previously only “alternatively” claimed, this narrows the scope of a...

When deciding on a request to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent was granted, all relevant circumstances relating to the case and to the position of the parties shall be taken into account. If the outcome of balancing of interests is equal – here both parties being international...

Withdrawal of claim after settlement – 20% of court fees refunded (Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP). The oral proceedings were not yet concluded even after the oral hearing on 16/04/2024. Proceedings not yet ready for a decision.

Inventive step. Technical effect Auxiliairy request II (Article 56 EPC): Burden of proof: The party asserting the invalidity of the patent must prove the relevant constituent facts in order to rebut the presumption of validity accorded to the granted patent. It is necessary to determine whether, given the state of the...

Patent revoked because of lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Starting from Lagace the skilled person having the aim to provide a treatment or way of prevention of […] would as a next step have pursued the route of developing antibodies that block the interaction between PCSK9 and LDLR as explicitly suggested by...

Inappropriate to order simultaneous translation into English in this case. (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 109 RoP, Rule 14 RoP). Costs of ordered translation are procedural costs which the other party may have to bear depending on the outcome of the proceedings. Plaintiff was free to decide in favour of conducting the...

No particular interest shown by Apple. Having regard to Ona's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, and taking into account the above reasons and the time Apple has taken to file its statement of grounds of appeal - which is significantly longer than the time Ona is to be given to file...

By way of exception: revocation counterclaim and plaintiff’s application for amendment of the patent are referred to the Paris Central Division, because almost all attacks against the patent in suit contained in the nullity counterclaim are also already asserted in the previously filed central nullity action (Article...

Confidential information (Rule 262A RoP). Not accepted that the circumstances of the negotiations between the parties,  which are naturally already known to the defendants, are to be fully protected under Rule 262A RoP. A subsequent restriction of access on the part of the defendant is out of the question. Rather, this...

Lodging written pleadings and confidentiality club. Inadmissible lodging of a redacted “unredacted version” of the Reply (Rule 9(2) RoP,, Rule 29 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). An exception be made because the problem is being addressed by the Unified Patent Court for the first time. Time limit for filing a rejoinder in the...

Confidentiality club and deadline extension from 17 July to 14 August 2024 (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 29 RoP). The extension is necessary but also sufficient to make a final statement on the FRAND aspect of the dispute. Case management (Rule 101 RoP) With regard to the further organisation of the parties' work, it should be...

Disclosure limited to authorized representatives (article 48 UPCA) in proceedings before UPC Local Divisions in Mannheim and Munich. The issuance of a secrecy protection order is not excluded simply because the plaintiff inadvertently uploaded her reply in a workflow relating to another parallel proceeding before the...

Time period for lodging Statement of response extended with 15 days after unredacted version of Exhibit 4 has been made available to ARM’s representatives (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 262A RoP, Rule 235).

Withdrawal of appeal from provisional measure with consent (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 151(d) RoP). The cost of the appeal incurred by Curio shall be borne by 10x , in an amount to be determined by the Court of First Instance (as requested by both parties) 

Case management order (Article 43 UPCA, Rule 9(1) RoP, Rule 101(1) RoP). Incorporation by reference of the instructions in parallel proceedings regarding the same patent (IPPT20240627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope). Instructions regarding issues to be discussed related to added subject matter, priority and...

Confidentiality regime (Rule 262A RoP) and extensions for filing pleadings (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 29 RoP). The time limit for filing a Rejoinder shall only run from the date on which the defendants have been served with a completely unredacted Reply. This shall not affect the running of the time limits for the submission...

Confidentiality club rules (Rule 262A RoP). Disclosure limited to authorised representatives in the present proceedings, parallel proceedings before the Landgericht München and the Landgericht Mannheim, the UPC Local Divisions in München and Mannheim and before the High Court of Justice of England & Wales. Penalty...

Reasons for validity dependent claims to be presented by patentee (Article 65(2) UPCA). It is not for the Court to provide reasons why any of the grounds for revocation referred to in Art. 65(2) UPCA, as presented by ABBOTT, would not apply to dependent claims 2 to 9. 
 

IPPT20240709_UPC_CFI_LD_Mannheim_Panasonic_v_Orope.pdfAccess for three natural persons is generally not objectionable in terms of numbers in case of complex technical matter. In the absence of indications to the contrary, persons who are professionally familiar with the handling of confidential information, can...