Rule 302 – Plurality of claimants or patents

Print this page

1. The Court may order that proceedings commenced by a plurality of claimants or in respect of a plurality of patents be heard in separate proceedings.

2. Where the Court orders a separation of proceedings the Court shall decide on the payment of a new court fee or court fees in accordance with Part 6.

3. The Court may order that parallel infringement or revocation proceedings relating to the same patent or patents and before the same local or regional division or the central division or the Court of Appeal be heard together where it is in the interests of justice to do so.


Case law


IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear – separate workflow

After leave granted to amend the case by Order of 11 December 2023 by including a second patent, the defendants may comment on the question whether the two patents  are to be heard in separate proceedings (Rule 302(1) RoP). The legal hearing to be granted to the defendants can be granted most clearly within the CMS by separating the subject matter of the extension of the action. This is because a separate workflow is then available for the action and for further possible defence submissions (objection; action for annulment; etc.). 


IPPT20231204, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce 

Separate infringement proceedings ordered for two different patents (Rule 302 RoP), no separate proceedings for the two different defendants (Rule 303 RoP). The patents in dispute can each be challenged in terms of their legal status. As a result, a different course of proceedings is possible and not unlikely. The parties have therefore rightly not opposed such a separation of proceedings. In the view of the local division, such a separation of proceedings should take place as early as possible to facilitate handling.