Security for legal costs and expenses (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP) requires a legitimate and real concern to be substantiated and proven by the party making the request, while the relative financial position of the parties is not as such a criterion, especially where the (limited) level of funding provided to a...

Request after conclusion of interim conference to hear party expert as a witness at the oral hearing rejected (R. 110 RoP, R. 181 RoP). Moreover, the request fails to recognise that, according to the party's own submission, the person named is not to be heard as a witness. Witnesses provide information on facts that...

Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Parties need to indicate at the oral hearing how to balance the requested lifting of the seizure (of evidence) on counterfeiting (‘Order to Preserve Evidence’) under R 198(1) RoP, while making use of the findings in execution of the descriptive seizure. Value of the...

Public access, subject to confidentiality order, after rejection of application for provisional measures with decision of 3 June 2024 (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). Access granted based on claimed general interest in the work and processing of a case by the Court, but subject to confidentiality order regarding...

Retrospective extension of the time period for lodging counterclaim for infringement because of malfunction of CMS (R. 9(3) RoP, R. 49 RoP). The evidence shows that the respondent was not able to submit the written pleading in the proper CMS workflow due to circumstances that were beyond its reasonable control as the...

Court may of its own motion disregard late filed requests, facts and evidence even if these were not objected to by the other party (Article 73(4) UPCA, R. 222.2 RoP). A party has a duty to provide available evidence (R. 172(1) RoP). Court has a discretionary power to request the production of evidence but is not...

Not considered independent for purpose of a valid representation (Article 48(5) UPCA, R. 333 RoP.) It is undebated that […] is the respondent’s managing director and main shareholder and that because of that he enjoys extensive administrative and financial powers within the body he represents. Confidential information ...

Manifest inadmissibility of the action (Rule 361 RoP) implies that the inadmissibility must be clearly evident from the pleadings and its assessment does not require any particular in-depth analysis. Alleged lack of independence by the claimant’s representative does not appear to be ‘manifest’ and, therefore, could not...

Claim interpretation (article 69 EPC). The skilled person reads the claim in a way that makes technical sense and that takes into account the entire disclosure of the patent and with a mind willing to understand the claim in context. The same applies to the description and the drawings, although their purpose must be...

Change in parties: correction of the party designation from a non-existent person or a person who does not have the capacity to be a party by analogous application of R. 305 RoP. A distinction must be made between the incorrect designation of a defendant and the designation of a non-existent person or a person who does...

Request for panel review of dismissal of security for costs by judge-rapporteur dismissed (R. 333.1 RoP, R. 158 RoP)

The judge-rapporteur correctly held that, under these principles, neither a financial risk nor a likelihood of unenforceability is presented to the Court. 

The Claimant, as part of the PepsiCo group, is...

Postponement  of oral hearing (R. 9 RoP, R. 108 RoP). Upon request of the parties and after consultation of the panel the date of the oral hearing is postponed from 11 September 2024 to 23 October 2024 because of postponement of the decision date in parallel proceedings from  6 September 2024 to 13 September 2024.

UNION-IP Round Table Friday 8 November 2024: Protecting Functional Designs and Works of Art
Functionality has been a debate for long time in the field of design and copyright protection. A balance needs to be made so as not to circumvent patents for protecting products with technical functions, whilst not being too...

IPPT20240909, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Panel confirms case management orders judge-rapporteur (R. 333 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 29(d) RoP). Panel exercises its authority to order and extension of the time limit for lodging Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim together with any Rejoinder to the Reply to...

Request to stay infringement proceedings dismissed (R. 295 RoP). There is currently no reason to suspend the infringement proceedings, even though the interim hearing on the revocation action will take place on 11 September 2024 and the oral hearing on 6 November 2024. The outcome of the proceeding is uncertain in...

Ex parte preliminary injunction and seizure of infringing oral cleansing system in connection with IFA 2024 trade fair in Berlin following earlier cease-and-desist-declaration (Article 62 UPCA, R. 209 RoP)

Request for discretionary review rejected (Rule 220.3 RoP). Motorola failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP (point 8 of the Preambule of the RoP) or any other objective of the discretionary review procedure. Its contention...

Request for expedition of appeals rejected (Rule 9.3(b) RoP). Possibility that the Munich Local Division might grant an injunction on the basis of a patent that has been upheld by the Court of First Instance but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeals. The...

Application for preliminary measures unfounded: Defendant’s conduct does not already constitute an imminent infringement, i.e. offering of infringing product (Article 62(1) UPCA) (Article 25(a) UPCA). In order for a patent infringement to be considered imminent, there must be concrete indications in the overall...

Connection joinder only possible within the competence limits of the competence regime of the UPCA (Article 33 UPCA, Rule 340 RoP). Referral of an action for infringement from a local division to the central division only possible with the the agreement of the parties involved.