Rule 20 – Decision or order on a Preliminary objection

Print this page

1. As soon as practicable after the expiry of the period referred to in Rule 19.5, the judge-rapporteur shall decide the Preliminary objection. The judge-rapporteur shall give the parties an opportunity to be heard. The decision shall include instructions to the parties and to the Registry concerning the next step in the proceedings.

2. Where the Preliminary objection is to be dealt with in the main proceedings, the judge-rapporteur shall inform the parties.


Case law


IPPT20231113, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences

Preliminary objection concerning the competence of the Central Division because of a pending action before the Munich Local Division rejected: Meril Italia is not the same party a Meril India or Meril Germany (article 33(4)UPCARule 20 RoP). Preliminary requests to postpone the hearing on Preliminary objection and to exclude exhibits rejected (Rule 20 RoP). One exhibit is not a new document but a more complete version concerning an irrelevant fact for the present case. Other exhibits concern three judicial decisions issued by national judges, which cannot be deemed as introducing (new) ‘facts’ – whose fling, as previously said, is, in principle, not admissible after the lodging of the Preliminary objection – since they do not relate to historical facts, but to arguments used to support an opinion. 


IPPT20231004, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Objections based on articles 29 and 30 Brussels Ibis Regulation may be the subject of a Preliminary objection under Rule 48 in connection with 19.1(a) RoP. Preliminary objection is to be dealt with in the main proceedings for reasons of procedural economy and efficiency (Rule 20.2 RoP). The Court in its Preliminary Order also expressed its understanding that the Preliminary objection relates to the Court´s jurisdiction only in respect of the German part of the European Patent. In view of the limited scope of the objection raised by the Defendant and in view of the different auxiliary requests submitted by the Claimant in response, the parties seem to agree that the UPC at least has jurisdiction for the non-German parts of the patent and that proceedings should continue in any event in relation to these parts. This understanding has been confirmed by the parties in their submissions following the Preliminary Order.


IPPT20230828, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport Vision v Supponor
Procedural order in main proceedings and provisional measures proceedings concerning issues to be addressed in written submissions, invitation to an oral hearing in front of the whole panel, including a technically qualified judge, and instructions regarding oral hearing.