Rule 105 – Holding the interim conference

1. The interim conference should, where practicable, be held by telephone conference or by video conference.

2. On request by a party, subject to paragraph 1 and the approval of the judge-rapporteur, the interim conference may be held in Court. If the interim conference is held in Court, it shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make it, to the extent necessary, confidential in the interests of one or both parties or third parties or in the general interests of justice or public order.

3. The judge-rapporteur may hold the interim conference in any language agreed by the parties’ representatives.

4. Rule 103 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

5. Following the interim conference, the judge-rapporteur shall issue an order setting out the decisions taken.

Case Law:

IPPT20240318, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Order following interim conference (Rule 105(5) RoP): 1. Document D18 is admitted into the proceedings. The parties and the judge-rapporteur agreed that D18 was admitted into the proceedings on the condition that the Defendant has until 11 April 2024 to file a succinct reply to the submission and the declaration, possibly including a short reply expert report, of which the length should be similar to Claimant´s submissions and which should be strictly in reply to points raised in D18 and the Claimant´s submission. 2. The value of the proceedings for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs is set at 4,000,000 EUR (four million euros) (Rule 152 RoP). 3. Parties are allowed to file additional exhibits relating to costs until 11 June 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 24 June 2024. 4. The date and time for the oral hearing is confirmed for 25 June 2024, 09.30 CET. 

IPPT20240219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Interim decisions following case management hearing (Rule 334(d) RoP, Rule 336 RoP, (Rule 105(5) RoP): Reserving right to schedule an interim conference (Rule 35(b) RoP). Allowing pleadings until the conclusion of the written procedure, which in addition to the topics addressed in the Rules of Procedure, may also address topics that have been raised at the hearing, provided that they do so immediately in the earliest written submission. Setting end date for written procedure. Setting date for oral hearing at 18 June 2024. The language of the hearing will be English (language of the proceedings is German). . Setting value of infringement action at € 1 million, of the three nullity counterclaims at € 1 million and of the proceedings at € 2 million. 

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.

IPPT20231003, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear

Workflows.  The exclusion of the public from the interim hearing and the oral proceedings is governed by Rules 105.2 and 115 RoP. Separate workflows are not available in this respect. Consequently, applications relating to this must be submitted in the workflow of the main proceedings (here: infringement proceedings).