2024 UPC May

IPPT20240510, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Cead v Bego
Request for simultaneous interpretations (Rule 109(1) RoP) rejected. The interests of the applicants are represented by three German-speaking representatives. In the course of the proceedings to date, they have made extensive submissions in German without the court becoming aware of any communication problems. The fact that the fourth legal representative does not speak German does not alter this assessment. Applicants' counsel is permitted to conduct the interim hearing and the oral hearing in English, optionally in Dutch, with simultaneous interpretation into German at their expense (Rule 109(2) RoP).

IPPT20240510, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Standstill Agreement
Preliminary objection rejected that UPC currently lacks jurisdiction because of violation of standstill agreement requiring a party has to inform the other party of the intention to file a lawsuit 90 days before the lawsuit is filed  (Rule 19 RoP). Jurisdiction – the ability of a specific court to hear and issue a decision on one or more specific disputes – has to respond to objective criteria which must not vary depending on the time of the filing of a claim or on the identity of the claimant.

IPPT20240506, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Separation of proceedings in two separate proceedings ordered (Rule 303 RoP). Separation between the defendants already represented by lawyers and the defendants regarding which foreign service is to be effected in accordance with the Hague Service Convention that is expected to take some time. 

IPPT20240506, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys
An intervening party may not develop claims contrary to those of the party it is supporting (Rule 313 RoP, Rule 9 RoP) and may not independently develop claims and procedural methods distinct from those offered to the party it is supporting. Consequently, an intervener who has not filed a counterclaim for invalidity within the time limit set for the party it is supporting cannot claim an extension of time to file an independent claim. No change of language of proceedings from French to the language of the patent (English) (Rule 322 RoP, Article 49 UPCA). Even though the European patent at issue was granted in English, the plaintiff, a Korean company, chose to bring its action in French, thereby respecting the rights of the defendant, a French company established in France. Neither the nationality of the representative of one of the parties, nor the nationality of the intervening company, constitute serious grounds for proposing a change in the language of the proceedings for reasons of convenience or fairness.

IPPT20240506, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Lawyers only confidentiality club by consent with respect to a document filed in preparation for the Interim Conference in connection with the JR's invitation to document the costs (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20240502, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Nokia v Mala Technologies
Preliminary objection against jurisdiction of the UPC because of ‘lis pendens’ with German revocation action rejected (Rule 19.1(a) RoP, Article 71c Brussels I, Article 83 UPCA). Lis pendens rules of Article 71c(2) Brussels I Reg recast do not apply  to a case in which the lawsuit before the national German court was brought two years before the beginning of the transitional period. No stay of UPC revocation action possible because of pending German revocation proceedings. Article 30 (1) Brussels I Reg recast is not applicable and in accordance with Art. 33 (10) UPCA and Rule 295 RoP, the UPC may only stay its proceedings in cases involving EPO opposition proceedings when a swift decision is anticipated from the EPO. No time extension for lodging Statement of defence to revocation because of preliminary objection (Rule 49.1 RoP, Rule 9.3 RoP). 

IPPT20240502, UPC CoA, PMA v AWM
Suspensive effect given to appeal of restitution order (that that shall take place from 5 June 2024) to ensure that there is time to decide on the appeal before the impugned order is enforced (Article 74 UPCA). No decision on the costs since this order is not a final order or decision concluding an action (Rule 242.1 RoP).

IPPT20240501, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Keestrack v Geha Laverman
Withdrawal of proceedings pursuant to a settlement (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 11 RoP). Restitution of part of the court fee appropriate. With the case being terminated at an early stage, i.e. after the issuance of the summons and before the filing of a reply by the respondent, and therefore before the 'written proceedings' are concluded, 60% of the court fees paid will be refunded (Rule 370.9(b) RoP). Delay in response considered timely filed (Rule 9.2 RoP). The delay in the respondent's response is apparently due to problems with CMS, and does not affect the applicant's legal position (other than delay). The response is therefore considered timely filed in this case, also given the timely submission by email.