Rule 314 – Order on Application to intervene

The judge-rapporteur shall decide on the admissibility of the Application to intervene by way of order. The other parties shall be given an opportunity to be heard beforehand.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250108, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Intervention by Mediatek in appeal proceedings between Daedalus and Xiaomi allowed (R. 313 RoP, R, 314 RoP). MediaTek has a direct and present interest in the result of the appeal proceedings, as the confidential information at issue in the appeal proceedings concerns information relating to the architecture of MediaTek’s processors. Daedalus’ submission that its US attorneys already have access to the confidential information in the context of parallel proceedings in the US does not alter the assessment. This submission may be relevant to the decision on the appeal but does not mean that there is no legal interest for MediaTek to intervene in the appeal proceedings. Application to intervene admissible, although not made before the closure of the written procedure (R. 313.2 RoP, R. 315 RoP). MediaTek declared that it does not intend to file a statement of intervention under R. 315.1 and R. 315.3 and wishes only to be allowed to participate in the oral hearing to support Xiaomi in their request to dismiss the appeal. Allowing the intervention will therefore not result in any delay of the appeal proceedings. 

Court of First Instance

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).

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Laser Components v Seoul Viosys
Forced intervention admissible for defendant Laser Components regarding its supplier, which is liable to indemnify Laser Components and should be bound by the decision in the infringement action (Rule 316A RoP)