Rule 303 – Plurality of defendants

1. Proceedings may be started against a plurality of defendants if the Court has competence in respect of all of them.

2. The Court may separate the proceedings into two or more separate proceedings against different defendants.

3. Where the Court orders a separation of proceedings under paragraph 2, the claimants in the new proceedings shall pay a new court fee in accordance with Part 6, unless the Court decides otherwise.

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250514, UPC CoA, Hisense v Corning
Request dismissed for discretionary review in appeal of panel confirmation of order of the judge-rapporteur not to separate proceedings against unrelated defendants (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 303.2 RoP). It is at the discretion of the court to separate proceedings. The Court must consider the legitimate interests of both parties and the public interest In a situation such as the present one, where several unrelated companies are involved in the proceedings, the parties can have a legitimate interest in maintaining confidentiality of business information. Furthermore, the legal proceedings should safeguard mutual uncertainty at least as to the timing, extent and details of any future changes in the conduct of competitors on the market. Preventing other defendants from obtaining access to confidential information can be realised by making use of confidentiality clubs (R. 262A RoP).

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay
Separation of proceedings at the court’s initiative prior to Statement of defence (R. 303.2 RoP,). While service on defendants 1 and 2 was effected on 3 June 2025, service on defendants 3 and 4 has not yet been effected. For the defendants 1 and 2, the deadline for the SoD expires on 3 September 2025, while the deadline for defendants 3 and 4 has not even begun to run yet. It is unreasonable to expect the claimant to wait for service on defendants 3 and 4 while the proceedings against defendants 1 and 2 can continue. 

IPPT20250403, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Preliminary objection rejected (R. 20 RoP). Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by R. 303.1 RoP. Whether or not those allegations are true or not and if in fact all glass sheets stem from the same process and are identical or not is subject to the main proceedings (cf. UPC_CoA_188/2024 Order of 3 September 2024 para.18). There is no obligation to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding.

IPPT20241010, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce - I
Claims brought against a plurality of defendants in one procedure (R. 303 RoP, R. 25.1 RoP) are to be treated as formally and substantively independent proceedings without the respective actions of one defendant having advantages or disadvantages for the other defendant. If individual defendants decide against filing a revocation counterclaim and the counterclaim is therefore expressly filed only by individual defendants, the validity argument is formally excluded for the defendants not involved in the revocation counterclaim. They cannot therefore successfully invoke the lack of validity in their proceedings. However, as long as the court refrains from separating the proceedings against several defendants, this has no practical effect. 

IPPT20240506, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Separation of proceedings in two separate proceedings ordered (Rule 303 RoP). Separation between the defendants already represented by lawyers and the defendants regarding which foreign service is to be effected in accordance with the Hague Service Convention that is expected to take some time. 

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 Local Chamber currently sees no reason for a separation in accordance with R. 303.2 VerfO. Even if the action is directed against two defendants, it concerns the same contested embodiment. Therefore, there are considerable synergy effects with regard to both the interpretation and the answer to the question of infringement. For this reason alone, it is justified to refrain from separating the proceedings with regard to the defendants.