UPC CFI, CD Milan, 3 december 2024: Lis pendens preliminary objection denied
19-01-2025 Print this page
Milan Central Division competent for revocation action (Article 33(4) UPCA, R. 19 RoP)).
CD Milan competent, partial overlap of parties. The revocation action does not concern the same parties as the infringement action.
UPC lacks jurisdiction in infringement action before the grant of the patent (article 97(3) EPC). An infringement action that is inadmissible at the time it is lodged, and hence brought in the context of Art. 33 par. 4 UPCA, cannot challenge the competence of the Central Division concerning a revocation action based on the same patent.
No hearing before decision on Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP, R. 264 RoP). Where the parties have had many opportunities to discuss (legal) questions and the Court does not have further questions to the parties or need to discuss legal issues, the Court may desist from having an oral earing. In the present case, parties have submitted written statements in two proceedings.
No stay of revocation action until final decision on Preliminary objection (R. 295 RoP). The question of the validity of the patent will have to be dealt with in the infringement action, so there is no disadvantage for the defendant to proceed with this revocation action.
