Entitled to withdraw opt-out, unless the earlier national litigation was brought during the transitional regime (Article 83(4) UPCA). Considering the wording, structure, object and purpose of Art. 83 UPCA as a whole, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the sentence “Unless an action has already been brought...

Leave to change claim granted following judgment of the Bundespatentgericht of 7 May 2024, except for claim II.2, which is not related thereto and could have been asserted as early as 12 March 2024 (R. 263 RoP). The amendment to the action almost three months later is no longer within the bounds of due diligence and...

Justified restriction of access to US-attorneys involved in parallel proceedings in the US with the intention to align the arguments and to provide the technical input to proceedings outside of the UPC System – and even outside of the EU (R. 262A RoP). Initially insufficiently blacked-out illustrations are part of the...

No leave granted to ABBOTT to amend case to cover new version of ABBOTT application (R. 263 RoP). Justified that ABBOTT could not have disclosed commercially sensitive information about  the launch of a new product to its competitor DEXCOM. The Amendment will unreasonably hinder DEXCOM in the conduct of is action given...

“Action manifestly bound to fail” (R. 361 RoP, R. 220.3 RoP) must be reserved for clear-cut cases. It should not result in a full exchange of arguments and evidence, as is clear from the use of the words ‘manifestly inadmissible’, and should not require further in-depth analysis, as rightly pointed out in the impugned...

UPC has international competence regarding counterclaims for revocation of non-opted out (European) patents (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 83(3) UPCA, Article 24(4) Brussels I Recast). Claims brought against a plurality of defendants in one procedure (R. 303 RoP, R. 25.1 RoP) are to be treated as formally and...

Scope of appeal and proceedings (Article 73(4) UPCA, R. 222.1 RoP). The Court of Appeal decides at its discretion, taking into account all the circumstances, whether a submission that was rightly not admitted by the Court of First Instance is to be considered in the appeal proceedings. The subject matter of the appeal...

Manifest error of law that managing directors of a company are intermediaries within the meaning of Art. 63(1) UPCA solely on the basis of their function as managing directors. A managing director of a patent infringing company represents that company. This company cannot therefore be a ‘third party’ within the meaning...

Request for adjournment of oral hearing because of outstanding order of the Court of Appeal concerning request for security for costs dismissed (Article 74(3) UPCA, R. 334 RoP). No indication that it may not be efficient and cost effective to hold the oral hearing at this stage. Contrary to the opinion of Defendant the...

Request for discretionary review in appeal (R. 220.3 RoP) only admissible, if leave to appeal against the impugned order is required (R.220.2 RoP) and the Court of First Instance refused to grant leave within 15 days of the order (R.220.3 RoP). Failure to indicate in the order for security that an appeal may be lodged...

Suinno to provide security of € 300,000 for legal costs (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Undisputed that respondent’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding license claims; respondent does not generate sufficient income or other...

Level of detail required to meet the standard of R 226 Rop for the Statement of grounds of appeal must be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on, among other things, how detailed the impugned order is in the contested parts. General statement that all submissions from the pleadings submitted at first instance...

Request for expedition of the appeal admissible but unfounded (R. 9.3(b) RoP, R. 235 RoP). EOFlow has not sufficiently substantiated, and the Court of Appeal fails to see, why it was necessary for EOFlow to await the decision of the Central Division on Menarini’s request for intervention, before filing the present...

Request rejected to extend deadline for lodging a Rejoinder (R. 52 RoP. R. 9.3 RoP) from 16 October to 25 October, the deadline for lodging a Reply. Granting the application would allow the applicant more time to prepare their written pleadings than is ordinarily provided for by the relevant provision and this would...

Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Request to change claim dismissed (R. 263 RoP). Request should have been in the application, not in an annex; changes asked are not mere corrections, could have been formulated earlier and extend the scope of the injunction. No need for alternative claims as the Court...

Successful party in case of disposal of an action following a cease-and-desist-letter undertaking by the defendant (Article 69 UPCA, R. 360 RoP, Article 14 Enforcement Directive) must be determined on the basis of the specific characteristics of the case and in particular the requests of the parties and the content of...

(Courtesy of Sven Klos, Allard Ringnalda and Jorn Torenbosch, KLOS c.s. and Margot van Gerwen and Charlotte Garnitsch, Taylor Wessing)

Copyright - Subject matter of applied art falls within the material scope of EU law: Provided that that subject matter can be classified as a ‘work’ within the meaning of Directive 2001...

No discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of refusal by Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal of partial rejection of request for an extension of two months’ time limit (R. 29(d) RoP) by judge-rapporteur and panel (R. 333 RoP). The period by which a court extends a time limit in a particular case is at the...

Information meant in R. 158.4 RoP – that if the party fails to provide adequate security within the time stated, a decision by default may be given in accordance with Rule 355 – does not necessarily have to be given in the Order to provide security for costs. In its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Volkswagen...

A counterclaim for revocation against a registered proprietor (R. 8.6 RoP) who is not entitled to be registered as proprietor (R. 8.5 RoP) is not manifestly bound to fail (R. 361 RoP) (R. 42 RoP, R. 25 RoP). In the event the registered proprietor and the person entitled to be registered as proprietor are not the same...