Rule 316A – Forced intervention

1. A party who contends that the person should be bound by the decision in the action even if he refuses to intervene shall give reasons for this contention in its reasoned request. In such a case the invitation must include these reasons and must state that the party making the request contends that the person should be bound by the decision in the action even if that person refuses to intervene.

2. If the person invited to intervene pursuant to Rule 316.1 does not intervene but wishes to contend that he should not be bound by the decision in the action, he shall lodge a statement to that effect within the one month period referred to in Rule 316.2. If no such statement is lodged within the time specified he shall be bound by the decision in the action as between himself and any other party to the action and shall not be entitled to argue that the decision in the action was wrong or that the inviting party did not conduct the proceedings leading to the decision in the action properly. If a statement is lodged within the time specified then the Court shall decide whether the person invited to intervene shall be bound having heard the parties and the person invited to intervene. If the Court so decides, the person invited to intervene may present an Application to intervene within one month of service of the Court’s decision. Rule 316.2 shall apply. If the person invited to intervene fails to present such an application, he shall be bound by the decision in the action.

Case Law:

IPPT20240313, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Laser Components v Seoul Viosys
Request for extension of time limit for filing Statement of defense by Laser Components because of coordination of a joint defence with intervening party Photon Wave dismissed (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 316A RoP). The plaintiff must not suffer from the procedural choices made by the defendant who has decided to call the intervener into question. The parties before the Unified Patent Court are aware that the time limits are strictly limited and must be diligent in their approaches so that the Court's operation is both fair and efficient, in accordance with the principles of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure, in articles 2 and 4. Accordingly, the defendant cannot legitimately rely on the fact that an intervention is in progress; it is being conducted in parallel with the main action and there is no justification for it delaying the proceedings.

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)