IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Request to stay proceedings rejected (R. 295 RoP). No obligation to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding. Rather it is common practice, which is not counter to any procedural rights of a defendant, to initiate proceedings against different parties separately, especially under circumstances, where the service of a statement of claim may be easy upon some defendants but problematic with regard to others. Court order to use one workflow (R. 9 RoP). There is no plausible reason to file identical requests submitting identical arguments in multiple workflows instead of combining them, even where defendants of the same group are concerned, especially where all defendants are represented by identical counsel. This causes tremendous unnecessary work on the side of all parties concerned as well as for the court.
IPPT20250403, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 20 RoP). Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by R. 303.1 RoP. Whether or not those allegations are true or not and if in fact all glass sheets stem from the same process and are identical or not is subject to the main proceedings (cf. UPC_CoA_188/2024 Order of 3 September 2024 para.18). There is no obligation to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding.
IPPT20250409 UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Request to separate proceedings rejected (R. 336 RoP): e Statement of defence in one brief by way of upload to the CMS. R.262A RoP may not address conflicts that a representative may have when representing various defendants in parallel.
