UPC CFIL, LD Hamburg, 25 August 2025: A representing lawyer is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in subsequent case regarding the same patent
18-11-2025 Print this page
A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action concerning the same patent (Article 48(1) UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP,
even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA, Rule 213 RoP).
Hence, the link between the proceedings in this case is different from the one assessed by LD Mannheim in case UPC CFI 445/2025, where it was held that the representative in the main proceeding (an infringement action) could be served an application that was inextricably linked to that main proceeding, even if the power of attorney was limited in this respect.
Since Defendant 1 has its statutory seat, central administration and principal place of business outside the territory of the contracting member states of the UPCA, service shall be done in accordance with Rule 274 RoP.
