Rule 296 – Duration and effects of a stay of proceedings

1. The stay of proceedings shall take effect on the date indicated in the order to stay or, in the absence of such an indication, on the date of that order. The Court shall stipulate what effect the stay shall have on any existing orders.

2. Where the order to stay does not fix the length of the stay, it shall end on the date indicated in the order to resume proceedings or, in the absence of such indication, on the date of the order to resume.

3. While proceedings are stayed, time shall cease to run for the purposes of procedural periods. Time shall begin to run afresh for the purposes of procedural periods from the date on which the stay of proceedings comes to an end.

Case Law

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Bifurcation: parties agree and most practical solution (Article 33(3) UPCA).  No stay of infringement action (R. 296.3 RoP). A stay of proceedings would lead to the consequence that all time-limits are automatically suspended and shall begin to run afresh from the date the stay comes to an end, R. 296.3 RoP. As a Statement of defence is still due for Defendant 1) and Defendant 5), it is for the time being favourable to proceed with the infringement action as a whole. Furthermore, a decision on the Defendant 5)’s preliminary objection dated 16 December 2024 under R. 19.1(a) is still pending. For the sake of efficiency of the proceedings the panel takes, as indicated by the judge-rapporteur in his preliminary order 10 December 2024, the expected time line for the issuing of a final decision of the Central Division into consideration.

IPPT20240816, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Wide discretion of the Court to design how “time shall begin to run afresh” after the stay of proceedings comes to an end in accordance with the relevant general principles such as procedural economy and flexibility (Rule 296(3) RoP). In the court's view, this is essentially a situation in which the claimant has to bring a new action with clarified circumstances and the defendant has to put forward new defence accordingly, derived from the TBA decision. The Court is in the position, that the written procedure as such has to be repeated, but with shorter time limits.