Rule 315 – Statement in intervention
Print this page1. If an Application to intervene is admissible, the judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge shall:
(a) inform the parties to proceedings; and
(b) specify a period within which the intervener may lodge a Statement in intervention.
2. The Registry shall as soon as practicable serve on the intervener any written pleading served by the parties. On a reasoned request by a party the Court may for the protection of confidential information order that a pleading or part of a pleading be disclosed only to certain named persons and subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure.
3. The Statement in intervention shall contain:
(a) a statement as to the issues involving the intervener and one or more of the parties, and their connection to the matters in dispute;
(b) the arguments of law; and
(c) the facts and evidence relied on.
4. The intervener shall be treated as a party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
Case Law
IPPT20241002, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Patent pool administrator admitted as intervener. By admitting the intervention, the Applicant is a participant to the proceedings and is to be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315 (4) RoP. As it must accept the proceedings at this stage, it must be allowed to inspect the files in order to conduct the proceedings appropriately. However, the Court has already classified certain parts of the FRAND Counterclaim of the Defendant 1) and of the Statement of defences briefs of the Defendant 1) – 6) and exhibits as confidential (R. 262A RoP) The Applicant can therefore not be granted unrestricted access to this information.
IPPT20240730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Intervener entitled to protection of confidential information. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the intervener is to be treated as a party (Rule 315(4) RoP). Just like a party, he therefore has the option of filing an application for protection of confidential information with regard to the information contained in the pleadings submitted by him (Rule 262A RoP).
IPPT20240722, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Intervener to be treated as a party and entitled to have at least one natural person, in addition to his legal representatives, have access to classified confidential information (Rule 315 RoP, Rule 262A RoP).
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. Consequently, an intervener who has not filed a counterclaim for invalidity within the time limit set for the party it is supporting cannot claim an extension of time to file an independent claim.