Rule 331 – Responsibility for case management

Print this page

1. During the written procedure and the interim procedure, case management shall be the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur subject to Rules 102 and 333.

2. The judge-rapporteur may refer a proposed order to the panel.

3. After the closure of the interim conference, case management shall be the responsibility of the presiding judge in consultation with the judge-rapporteur.

4. The Registry shall serve any case management orders on the parties as soon as practicable after the decision of the judge-rapporteur, presiding judge or panel.

 

Relation with Agreement: Article 43

 

Case law

 

Court of Appeal

 

IPPT20240321, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei
Determination of the judge-rapporteur to deal with the Preliminary objection in the main proceedings is a case management decision that must be reviewed by the panel at the request of the defendant (Rule 333(1) RoP). As a general principle, unless provided otherwise, a case management decision or order made by the judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge can only be appealed if such decision or order has first been reviewed by the panel pursuant to R.333.1 RoP. Judge-rapporteur not authorized to decide on application for review under Rule 333(1) RoP. Rule 333(4) RoP explicitly provides that the panel shall decide the Application for review. As can be inferred from Article 52(2) UPCA, case management during the written procedure and the interim procedure is mandated by the panel to the judge-rapporteur. In accordance therewith, Rule 331(1) RoP provides that case management is the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur subject to Rule 102 and Rule 333 RoP. If a Preliminary objection is rejected, as an exception to the general principle, leave to appeal may be given by the judge-rapporteur without prior panel review under Rule 333(1) RoP being required (Rule 21(1) RoP). If leave is granted, the unsuccessful party thus has the choice to either file an appeal or an application for review under R.333.1 RoP. If the judge-rapporteur did not grant leave to appeal, a party may apply for a panel review. The resulting panel decision may then subsequently be appealed if leave has been granted by the panel under R.220.2 RoP, or it may be subject to discretionary review under R.220.3 RoP. An Application under Rule 333(1) RoP in the event of a Rule 20(2) RoP notification is not inadmissible due to a lack of a justified interest. 

 

Court of First Instance

 

IPPT20231004, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla

Protection of confidential information (Rule 262A RoP).  The competence of the judge-rapporteur for the present order in the written procedure follows from Rule 331(1) in connection with 334 and 335 of the Rules of Procedure.

 

IPPT20230828, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport Vision v Supponor
Procedural order in main proceedings and provisional measures proceedings concerning issues to be addressed in written submissions, invitation to an oral hearing in front of the whole panel, including a technically qualified judge, and instructions regarding oral hearing.