UPC CoA, 21 November 2024: to stay an expected final decision of the EPO is not required
23-12-2024 Print this page
Court of First Instance erred in refusing to grant the requested stay solely on the basis of its finding that a final decision in the opposition proceedings could not be expected rapidly (Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a) RoP).
New legal arguments may be submitted in appeal. The discretion of the Court of Appeal to disregard new “requests, facts and evidence” does not apply to legal arguments (R. 222.2 RoP).
Stays on the ground of parallel EPO opposition proceedings are governed by the more specific provisions of Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a), R. 295(g) and 118.2(b) RoP. This case therefore does not qualify as an “other case” within the meaning of R. 295(m) RoP.
Discretion to stay infringement proceedings in case of parallel EPO opposition proceedings (Art. 33(10) UPCA, R. 295(a) RoP).
Only required that it can be expected that a decision of the EPO may be expected rapidly, not a final decision. The Court has a discretionary power to stay, depending on the balance of interests of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case, such as the stage of the opposition proceedings, the stage of the infringement proceedings and the likelihood that the patent will be revoked in the opposition proceedings.
