Postponement of decision on Preliminary objection based on lack of jurisdiction for the claim for damages suffered in the UK and Northern Ireland within the boundaries of the discretion of the Munich LD and not unreasonable (R.19.5 RoP, R. 20.2 RoP).
NST’s new submissions in appeal in its Statement of response not disregarded (R. 222.2 RoP). If Volkswagens clarification in its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal that Volkswagen clarified is to be taken into account the principles of fair trial require that NST must also be allowed to respond to that on appeal.
No evidence of disputed valid power of attorney of a UPC representative required in the absence of any substantiated reasons why the actual existence thereof should be called into question (Article 48 UPCA, Rule 285 RoP).
Deficiencies in the Statement of claim (R. 13 RoP) can be corrected. Claims and arguments may be further substantiated at a later stage of the main proceedings. This may in particular be the case when the claimant, after having made an argument in its Statement of claim, further substantiates this argument in the Reply to the Statement of defence its Statement (R. 29(a) or (b) RoP). Even though the UPC procedure is a front-loaded system, it is not required that the claimant envisage every possible line of defence and include all arguments, facts and evidence in, and submits it with, the Statement of claim and that nothing could ever be added thereafter.
Actions “manifestly” bound to fail (R. 361 RoP) reserved for clear-cut cases and should not result in a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
A Statement of claim (R. 13 RoP) that sets out in detail why one infringing embodiment, that is taken as an example, infringes the patent and that includes a list setting out further embodiments with a similar structure that are infringing for (essentially) the same reasons, does not with respect to the embodiments included in that list result in an action that is manifestly lacking any foundation in law as meant in R. 361 RoP). It remains to be seen what the approach of the UPC in this respect shall be, which is a matter to be dealt with in the main proceedings (and possibly followed by appeal proceedings).
Order for costs (R.242.1 RoP, Article 69 UPCA)) is to be interpreted to mean that if the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision concluding an action, such as the present order, the Court of Appeal will not issue an order for costs in respect of the proceedings at first instance and at appeal.
