Rule 313 – Application to intervene
Print this page1. An Application to intervene may be lodged at any stage of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal by any person establishing a legal interest in the result of an action submitted to the Court (hereinafter “the intervener”).
2. An Application to intervene shall be admissible only if it is made in support, in whole or in part, of a claim, order or remedy sought by one of the parties and is made before the closure of the written procedure unless the Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal orders otherwise.
3. The intervener shall be represented in accordance with Article 48 of the Agreement.
4. The Application to intervene shall contain:
(a) a reference to the action number of the file;
(b) the names of the intervener and of the intervener’s representative, as well as postal and electronic addresses for service and the names of the persons authorised to accept service;
(c) the claim, order or remedy in support of which intervention is sought by the intervener; and
(d) a statement of the facts establishing the right to intervene under paragraphs 1 and 2.
Case Law
IPPT20240730, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Intervention admissible on the condition that the intervener deposits a security for costs in the amount of EUR 134.000 with the UPC by 20 August 2024 ((Rule 314 RoP). While Article 69(4) UPCA only provides for the provision of a security for costs by the plaintiff, Rule 158 RoP extends the circle of addressees of such an order to "the parties" and thus also to the intervener if it is admitted. Legal interest in the result of the action requires a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the supported party, which in any case can be affirmed if it is alleged that the product purchased from the intervener infringes the patent in suit (Rule 313(1) RoP).
IPPT20240626, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Intervention by manager of patent pool to which the plaintiff has contributed its HEVC-essential patent portfolio, including the patent in suit, allowed (Rule 313 RoP). The intervener has a sufficient legal interest in the outcome of the legal dispute. […] the intervener also fulfils the plaintiff's FRAND obligations and has been in talks with the defendant's group for some time about the conclusion of a pool licence.
IPPT20240506, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys
An intervening party may not develop claims contrary to those of the party it is supporting (Rule 313 RoP, Rule 9 RoP) and may not independently develop claims and procedural methods distinct from those offered to the party it is supporting.
IPPT20240422, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce
Intervention by licensee allowed (Rule 313 RoP).Intervening licensee has a direct and present interest in the outcome of the revocation counterclaim as well as the joint infringement action because any change in the interpretation and determination of the scope of protection can directly influence not only the answer to the infringement question, but also the assessment of the validity of the patent in dispute.
IPPT20240110, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Application to intervene in appeal refused. Interest in the result of the action (Rule 313(1) RoP) means a direct and present interest in the grant by the Court of the order or decision as sought by the party, whom the prospective intervener whishes to support and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific request sought by the supported party, and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties. A similiarity between two cases is not sufficient.