Rule 104 – Aim of the interim conference

Print this page

The interim conference shall enable the judge-rapporteur to:

(a) identify main issues and determine which relevant facts are in dispute;

(b) where appropriate, clarify the position of the parties as regards those issues and facts;

(c) establish a schedule for the further progress of the proceedings;

(d) explore with the parties the possibilities to settle the dispute or to make use of the facilities of the Centre;

(e) where appropriate, issue orders regarding production of further pleadings, documents, experts (including court experts), experiments, inspections, further written evidence, the matters to be the subject of oral evidence and the scope of questions to be put to the witnesses;

(f) where appropriate, but only in the presence of the parties, hold preparatory discussions with witnesses and experts with a view to properly preparing for the oral hearing;

(g) make any other decision or order as he deems necessary for the preparation of the oral hearing including, after consultation with the presiding judge, an order for a separate hearing of witnesses and experts before the panel;

(h) set a date for any separate hearing pursuant to point (g) of this Rule, confirm the date for the oral hearing and order, where appropriate, after consultation with the presiding judge and the parties that the oral hearing or a separate hearing of witnesses and experts be wholly or partly by video conference in accordance with Rule 112.3;

(i) decide the value of the action in accordance with Rule 370.6.;

(j) decide the value of the proceeding for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs (Rule 152.3);

(k) order the parties to submit, in advance of the decision at the oral hearing, a preliminary estimate of the legal costs that they will seek to recover. 


Relation with Agreement: Article 52(2)


Case Law:


IPPT20240606, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Interim conference (Rule 104 RoP). Access granted to written report and any other results of the measures of inspection of the premises and preservation of evidence which can only be used in the proceedings on the  merits (Rule 196.2 and 199 RoP). No order to declare chain of sales and resale by defendant (Rule 104(e) RoP). Does not appear necessary in these proceedings, also in light of the principle of proportionality (paragraph n 3. of the Preamble of the R.o.P.), the allegatory and evidentiary framework collected, such an order does not appear necessary. Claim may be made in future procedure for determination of damages. Value of the case provisionally set at € 750.000 (Rule 104(j) RoP). In the light of all the above considerations, the Judge Rapporteur considers, in the context of an assessment as already stated only provisional, subject to better examination by the Court also in the light of the documents whose filing is authorised as shortly, that the value of the case in € 750,000.00. And this for the purpose of the scale of the limits for recoverable costs. Allowed to file new documents preparatory to the review of the value of the case and the Court's review of the defensive efforts undertaken, in relation to the assessment of the costs of litigation.


IPPT20240131, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Order after interim conference (Rule 105(5) RoP). Later filed amendments, auxiliary requests (Rule 30(2) RoP, Rule 50(2) RoP). No legal basis for pre-emptively and categorically ruling out the submission of any further auxiliary requests or to order the Defendant to make the auxiliary requests more convergent. The judge-rapporteur emphasized the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings, also where it concerns auxiliary requests (with reference to 50.2 Rule in connection with Rule 30.2 RoP). Last-minute requests and submissions are not what is intended in UPC proceedings. Front loaded proceedings and late filing (Rule 263 RoP) Parties are hereby informed that any applications to change their case will be duly considered – without prejudice to whether such applications will be granted or not – until 15 March 2024. Amendments introduced after that date will be presumed to be in violation of the requirements of Rule 263.2(a) RoP. Document filed by the Claimant with the Reply to the Defence to Revocation not disregarded as late-filed, but admitted; it was agreed that the Defendant would get the opportunity to respond to the submissions of the Claimant based on document D46 within 6 weeks after the date of the interim conference, in a written submission having a maximum of 10 pages. Defendant subsequently withdrew its objection. Value of the proceeding for recoverable costs (Rule 104(j) RoP,  Rule 152.3 RoP). Parties were in agreement of the value of the proceedings being set at EUR 7,500,000 (seven and a half million euro). The Court did not have any objections. The value of the proceedings is set accordingly. Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (article 69 UPCA). In order for the parties and the Court to assess whether costs incurred are indeed reasonable and proportionate and whether or not equity requires otherwise, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred. To this end, the Court will allow the filing of additional exhibits relating to costs until two weeks prior to the hearing (3 April 2024) for all costs incurred until that date. This submission may be updated by a further submission to be lodged at the latest noon CET on the day before the hearing (16 April 2024). The last submission may include an estimate of costs incurred for the hearing itself. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties that the Court will, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate.


IPPT20240123, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Krausmaffei v Troester

Order after interim conference ((Rule 104 RoP, Rule 105(5) RoP)held via video conference before the judge-rapporteur together with two other members of the panel: determining the date at which the written procedure ends, confirming the date of the oral hearing, setting deadlines for submissions, ordering the parties to submit a preliminary estimate of the costs (same date as end date of written procedure) and setting the value of the action at € 2 million. The recording of the interim hearing is stored [...] and can be listened to on the premises of the Local Chamber Munich in accordance with Rule 106 RoP.