UPC CoA, 12 February 2025: Duty to be represented - public policy issue which the Court can examine of its own motion
08-03-2025 Print this page
Duty to be represented (Article 48 UPCA, R. 8 RoP).
Late filed objection. Meril GmbH did not make this objection before the Central Division or in its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal disregards this submission. (R. 226 RoP and R. 222.2 RoP).
Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion. When a matter such as this is raised by the Court, there can be reason, depending on the circumstances, to provide the party with an opportunity to appoint a representative.
Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC. Consequently, the fact that Respondent 1 is an authorised representative himself does not relieve him from the requirement of being represented.
Respondent 1 is Chair of the Board of directors of SWAT Medical. He holds a high-level management position within SWAT Medical and cannot represent the company. It follows that Respondent 1 is not allowed to represent SWAT Medical.
