Rule 332 – General principles of case management

Active case management includes:

(a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other during the proceedings;

(b) identifying the issues at an early stage;

(c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and disposing summarily of other issues;

(d) deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved;

(e) encouraging the parties to make use of the Centre and facilitating the use of the Centre;

(f) helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the action;

(g) fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the action;

(h) considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it;

(i) dealing with as many aspects of the action as the Court can on the same occasion;

(j) dealing with the action without the parties needing to attend in person;

(k) making use of available technical means; and

(l) giving directions to ensure that the hearing of the action proceeds quickly and efficiently.

Case Law

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Panel confirmation of judge rapporteur’s case management order of 8 May 2025 (ORD_10069/2025) regarding the management of the subsequent proceedings is confirmed under the condition that the typo in item 4 of the order is corrected to “Rule 29(e) of the Rules of Procedure” (R. 332 RoP, R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord

Case management judge-rapporteur deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved (R. 332(d) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur decides to refer all pending requests to the panel for decision after the main oral hearing. The Judge-Rapporteur does not see any possibility of disposing of the entire case immediately. Since difficult procedural and substantive issues need to be decided, it's more efficient to wait for the outcome of the oral proceedings before the EPO's BoA. Moreover, if the patent in question is upheld by the BoA, the panel should only decide on these difficult issues after an oral hearing and only if they are still decisive.

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Bruker
Case management. Immediate continuation of written procedure ordered after submission of revised application to amend patent with a total 4 auxiliary requests, oral hearing 17 September 20215 remains unchanged. The longer a proceeding has already lasted, the greater weight is given to the right to be heard within a reasonable period of time in a fair proceeding when deciding whether to continue the proceeding (R. 332 RoP)

IPPT20250207, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Active case management (R. 9 RoP, R. 332 RoP): the parties are invited to submit a – possibly joint - request for the alignment of future procedural deadlines