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

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.