Rule 333 – Review of case management orders

Print this page

1. Case management decisions or orders made by the judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge shall be reviewed by the panel, on a reasoned Application by a party.

2. An Application for the review of a case management order shall be lodged within 15 days of service of the order. The Application shall set out the grounds for review and the evidence, if any, in support of the grounds. The other party shall be given an opportunity to be heard.

3. The party seeking a review shall pay the fee for the review of a case management order, in accordance with Part 6. Rule 15.2 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

4. The panel shall as soon as practicable decide the Application for review and make any necessary revised case management order.

5. A decision of the panel on an Application for review is a procedural decision for the purposes of Rule 220.2.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260513, UPC CoA, Huawei v Quinn Emanuel
Application for discretionary review granted (R. 220.3 RoP; R. 333 RoP, R. 262 RoP) because the question of whether the rapporteur’s decision regarding access under R. 262 RoP is subject to review by the panel pursuant to R 333 RoP, and whether and how an appeal may be lodged against that decision, raises fundamental legal issues which must be clarified by the Court of Appeal.

IPPT20250114, UPC CoA, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Justified to allow discretionary review in appeal of orders of the judge-rapporteur (absent panel review) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The question whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal is an access to justice issue which the Court of Appeal can raise of its own motion. Possible for judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge to order security for costs. R. 158 RoP does not exclusively reserve orders on security for costs for a panel of the Court. This flexibility allows the judges to organise the proceedings in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP) must be considered a case management order, making it subject to review by the panel (R. 333.1 RoP). System implies a broad interpretation of “case management decision or order”. Judge-rapporteur not competent to decide on leave to appeal in his order on security for cost (R. 158 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 333.1 RoP). Would circumvent the system with panel review. It is therefore only the panel, after panel review, that can decide on leave to appeal.

IPPT20241127, UPC CoA, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Discretionary review of an order of judge-rapporteur on security for costs and denying leave to appeal granted because of an access to justice issue which has not yet been decided and which the Court of Appeal can raise of its own motion (R. 220.3 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20240930, UPC CoA, Xiaomi v Panasonic
No discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of refusal by Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal of partial rejection of request for an extension of two months’ time limit (R. 29(d) RoP) by judge-rapporteur and panel (R. 333 RoP). The period by which a court extends a time limit in a particular case is at the court's discretion.

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Inadmissible request for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of an order rejecting – without leave to appeal – the ‘R.361 RoP request’ to declare the revocation action manifestly inadmissible (Rule 361 RoP). Leave to appeal as provided for in Rule 220.2 RoP required because the provision of Rule 363(2) RoP that a “decision […] pursuant to Rules […] 361 […] is a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a)” (for which leave to appeal is not required) only concerns orders granting a ´R.361 RoP request´. An order denying a R.361 RoP request is a case management order as meant in R.333.1 RoP that cannot be directly appealed but can only be reviewed by the panel.

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.

IPPT20240111, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei

Request for discretionary review and appeal allowed of decision of the judge-rapporteur not to allow review of order by the panel that a preliminary objection is to be dealt within the main proceedings (Rule 220(3) 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 Rule 333.1. Request for a discretionary review allowed of decision of judge-rapporteur on the admissibility of the application to have his decision reviewed by the panel pursuant to Rule 333.1 RoP, rather than have the panel decide on the admissibility of the application. Denying the request only justified if the underlying reasoning of the judge-rapporteur would be accurate. Under these circumstances, the standing judge considers it justified to allow the request for discretionary review to the extent that the applicant is allowed to appeal the decision of 11 December 2023.

First Instance

IPPT20260326, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Quinn Emanuel v Huawei
Inadmissible application panel review (R. 333.1 RoP) of a decision of the judge-rapporteur under R. 262.1(b) RoP as R. 262.1(b) RoP does not provide for any transfer of competence from the panel to the judge-rapporteur, and therefore no review of the (delegated) decision of the judge-rapporteur by the panel is warranted. For the training and advisory interest of a law firm justifying third-party access to the file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, an abstract assessment is required. Therefore, it is generally sufficient that the requested access can objectively serve to satisfy the interest in obtaining information for training and advisory purposes. This interest exists independently of whether the Court could be scrutinised through access to the files.

IPPT20260323, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Valeo v Robert Bosch
Panel review confirming dismissal of preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP). Competence in case of multiple defendants (Article 33.1(b) UPCA).

IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Rejection of preliminary objections confirmed by panel (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Appeal of rejection of preliminary objection (R. 333 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP). If a Preliminary objection is rejected, as an exception to the general principle, leave to appeal may be given by the judge-rapporteur and the order may be appealed against without prior panel review under R.333.1 RoP being required.

IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, CD Paris, ALD France v Nanoval
Panel review confirms dismissal of Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Parent and subsidiary companies are not automatically “same parties” (Article 33(4) UPCA): depends on having the same or independent business activities. The assessment of the unity of the undertaking in the context of an antitrust action is subject to different requirements and must take other interests into account, meaning that the principles developed there are not transferable. The risk of conflicting decisions by the Central Division and the Local Division does not constitute grounds for a stay. (R. 295 (m) RoP). R. R. 295(m) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the right to an effective remedy and to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time The requirement of effective legal protection demands a prompt decision on the action for annulment as well.

IPPT20260115, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google
Order of judge rapporteur not allowing the exchange of further written pleading and not allowing late amendment of the case to include indirect infringement confirmed by panel (Rule. 36 RoP, Rule. 263 RoP, Rule. 333.2 and 333.3 RoP)

IPPT20260130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Panel review of a judge rapporteur penalty order. (R. 333 RoP) . A penalty order may be issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone. (R. 354.4 RoP, R 1.2(a) RoP). Any enforcement order may be reviewed by the CoA, but does not exclude a panel review under R. 333 RoP beforehand. R. 333 RoP does not have to be restricted to “case management decisions or orders” which are of organizational purpose. Rather “case management” can be understood broadly so it also encompasses orders, which deal with if a decision or order has been complied with.

IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave Machine v Surftown
Request for review of order regarding dismissal of extension of time period for lodging of a rejoinder denied. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 9 (3) RoP). Reasons why Defendants needed an extension of time is not pointed out in the request for extension or the panel review request. (Rule 9 (3)RoP). Their sole argument can be deduced to the fact that the Claimant had more time to file a brief than the Defendants. Besides the fact, that the Rules of Procedures accept different time periods for different briefs.The Defendant’s approach regarding filing an application for confidentiality to cause delay would lead to situations where parties would be able to file applications for confidentiality in the future well knowing that any delay caused by their application would additionally grant them longer time periods for their further submissions. (Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20251111, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay v Zhejiang
Panel review confirmation of Judge Rapporteur’s order dated 25 September 2025 regarding confidentiality club (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 333 RoP). It is possible for a person who is not an employee of a party to join a confidentiality club, depending on the relevant circumstances of the case. Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative. (Art. 48 UPCA)

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Wonderland v Cybex
Review of order confirms denial of the Claimant’s application for leave to amend the claim. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 263 RoP). No arguments presented that would lead the Panel to reach a different conclusion . The Claimant seeks to claim infringement by equivalence for multiple features, this does not alter the nature or scope of the dispute and does not constitute an amendment of the case.

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Request for Further exchanges of written pleadings dismissed. Written proceedings closed. (Rule 35 RoP, Rule 36 RoP) . late filed requests relating to indirect infringement and relating to the amended form of the patent concerning indirect infringement are not admissible and not taken into account. (Article. 26 UPCA).

IPPT20251013, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Panel review of a Judge Rapporteur order on the holding of an interim conference: Request to hold interim conference dismissed. (Rule 333 RoP, R.105 RoP). No scope for a review : Order contains a declaration of intent and does not stipulate that there will be no interim conference. Claimant seeks a different outcome and is not alleging misuse of discretion. As the decision to hold an interim conference lies at the discretion of the Presiding Judge, acting on behalf of the Judge-Rapporteur, it is questionable whether the Panel can make the order instead of the Judge-Rapporteur, as the suggestion to conduct an interim conference is based on alleged new circumstances. No need to discuss the Claimant´s brief which was filed outside of any case management regime and time periods set by the Court. The Claimant cannot force the Court to schedule an interim conference by filing additional briefs and claiming them as reason for further oral discussion.

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments

Application for security for costs confirmed. (R. 158 RoP) . Request to review order rejected (R. 333 RoP) Leave to appeal refused. Costs incurred by the Defendants likely to reach the confirmed amount given that the proceedings at hand are complex. It is not apparent that the amount of the security would unreasonably hinder the Claimant in the enforcement of its patent.

IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Panel confirms dismissal of request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), (R. 36 RoP)

IPPT20250818, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Panel review confirming of PO order 23 May 2025 (R. 333 RoP, R. 20 RoP). Jurisdiction over Moderna Spain based on both Art. 7(2) and Art. 8(1) BR in the PO Order and for Norway on the corresponding articles of the revised Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial. For establishing international jurisdiction, it is sufficient for the Claimants to allege in a substantiated way either that Moderna Spain and Moderna Norway infringe the same patents (one of which is a bundle patent, the other has unitary effect) with the allegedly infringing product “Spikevax” (the same product) in their home countries (the same territory) collectively with Moderna Netherlands within the meaning of art. 8 BR / 6(1) Lugano Convention), or alternatively that these entities (threaten to) infringe the same patent with unitary effect or (national leg of) a European patent with the same product in UPC territory (Art. 7(2)BR/5(3) Lugano Convention). It is then for the court to determine whether the alleged infringement is plausible to establish jurisdiction.

IPPT20250808, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v CeraCon
Panel confirmation of order dismissing leave to amend counterclaim for revocation by introducing new prior art (R. 263 RoP, R. 333 RoP).

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies
Time period for starting proceedings on the merits following an order to preserve evidence (R. 198.1 RoP). Order of 18 March 2025 changing the start of the time period from 28 February 2025 to the date on which the expert report will be made available has become final as the order of the judge rapporteur has not been submitted for panel review (R. 333 RoP).

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)

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Ericsson v Asustek
Panel review dismissed of confidentiality club order rejecting external eyes only (R. 262A RoP). On the specific issue of potential antitrust violation, Ericsson limited itself in a general way to arguing that there is a risky situation related to the disclosure of the financial aspects of the information, in particular because Ericsson’s licensees may be in direct competition with Asustek. Admissible application for panel review of confidentiality club order (R. 262A RoP, R. 333.1 RoP). An order under rule 262A RoP influences the conduct of the proceedings and is thus an order directing the proceedings according to rule 333.1 RoP.

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Claimants are given to opportunity to respond within one week to ‘application to review a case management order’ (R. 333 RoP), requesting to have the order of the JR of 23 May 2025 (ORD 21852/2025) regarding preliminary objections [R. 20 RoP] filed by Defendants, reviewed by the entire panel (Rule 333.1 RoP).

IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Panel rejects request to review rejection by judge-rapporteur of request to issue a penalty warning letter (R. 354 RoP, R. 333 RoP)). The panel did not - in the main decision - fix time periods for the fulfilment of operative parts B.III, B.IV. and B.V. and also did not decide on amounts of penalty up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties and only there appropriate penalties will have to be set in the light of the facts of the case. If Claimant had disagreed with the main decision, it would have been bound to challenge the points subject to this review with an appeal against the decision on the merits. It is not for the panel to now alter the operative part of that decision upon a request for panel review.

IPPT20250612, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Claimants are given the opportunity to respond within one week (R. 19 RoP) to ‘application to review a case management order’ (R. 333 RoP), regarding preliminary objections filed by Defendants by the entire panel (Rule 333.1 RoP). In the alternative to allow the appeal against the decision of the panel on the preliminary objections.

IPPT20250522, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Panel review confirms case management order not to allow a further exchange of written pleadings (R. 12.5 RoP, R. 36 RoP, R. 333 RoP). A request pursuant to R. 36, 12.5 RoP calls for a sufficient degree of substantiation so that the judge-rapporteur can retrieve the essential facts from the application itself without having to study the file. This formal standard applies in general and does not depend on whether there was a change of the judge-rapporteur or not. As far as Claimant attempts to remedy the deficiencies in its request pursuant R. 333 RoP, these statements are irrelevant to the review proceedings. It is inherent in the review proceedings that it has the same basis as the impugned order. On a regular basis, the review only concerns the facts and the state of the dispute at the time the impugned order was issued, so that the additional arguments now put forward in the review proceedings do not justify a different outcome.

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, JingAo v Chint
Panel review of dismissal of security for costs by order of 2 April 2025 rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Reference can be made to the contested order for the reasons. The Defendants have not put forward any new convincing arguments.

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
Panel review: order of judge-rapporteur to dismiss application to revoke provisional measures upheld (R. 333 RoP. R. 15 RoP, R. 213(1) RoP). Nothing in R. 213 (1) RoP states or implies that the court fees have to be received by the court in order to start the proceedings. As Syngenta has started the main proceedings and has paid the court fee in due time, the application must be dismissed.

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Samsung
Extension of term by mutual request of the parties from 3 April 2025 until 8 April 2025 granted (R. 333 RoP).

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
No security for costs (R. 158 RoP). In view of the positive financial situation of NJ DIFFUSION and in view of the estimated amount of the costs likely to be recovered, there is no evidence of a risk that the claimant will be unable to pay this sum - or even encounter difficulties in doing so - if she is ordered to reimburse the defendant's costs. Order is a case management order, which is not subject to appeal but subject to panel review (R. 333 RoP)

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Panel review of order of judge-rapporteur to limit the number of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number (R. 30 RoP, R. 333 RoP). If the outcome of the proceedings before the EPO is to be reflected and taken into account in the present proceedings and therefore the present proceedings were ordered to stay, it must be possible for Claimant 2) to adjust his auxiliary requests in the present proceedings according to the decision of the Opposition Division. It is not possible at this stage to assess what number of auxiliary requests will ultimately be considered reasonable. Claimant 2) is ordered to submit his auxiliary requests within 20 days after the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO.

PPT20241202, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Heraeus v Vibrantz
Panel review: Change of claim to include Romania allowed (R. 263 RoP, R. 333 RoP).Change of claim to include Romania allowed (R. 263 RoP). The two extensions of the action shall be allowed because both parties have requested that the question of infringement and validity concerning Romania also be heard and decided. Amendment of claim to include process claim allowed: does not constitute a change of claim within the meaning of Rule 263 RoP. This is because, following the example of the Court of Appeal, no other patent is being asserted. The infringement allegation regarding the same product is merely supported by an additional patent claim. Accordingly, only Rule 13 in conjunction with point 7 of the preamble and Rule 9.2 Rules of Procedure are to be examined.

IPPT20241022, UPC CFI LD Hamburg, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
Panel review of order to produce documents which are the subject of parallel US proceedings (R. 333 RoP, Article 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). Defence of abuse of rights can be considered by the UPC. Production of emails allegedly showing that the first claimant had acted, including the acquisition of […], with the aim of securing a dominant position in the SST market, and that the second claimant was aware that the […] licence or its transfer to the first claimant would harm the defendant. Production of documents regarding specific instructions by first claimant of its employees to destabilise the market. Price-related abuse of a dominant position is not relevant either to the question of patent infringement or to any secondary claims arising from such infringement. The issue of an alleged restriction of competition resulting from a company’s pricing policy has no connection to a patent dispute. Order is proportionate, documents are covered by confidentiality regime (R. 262A RoP) and disclosure is necessary as defendant has no other means to obtain knowledge of the documents because of US protective order and lack of consent for cross-use. Defendant not required to conduct evidence gathering proceedings in the USA in lieu of its applications for evidence production under Article 59 UPCA

IPPT20240916, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - II
Not considered independent for purpose of a valid representation (Article 48(5) UPCA, R. 333 RoP.) It is undebated that […] is the respondent’s managing director and main shareholder and that because of that he enjoys extensive administrative and financial powers within the body he represents.

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
Request for panel review of dismissal of security for costs by judge-rapporteur dismissed (R. 333.1 RoP, R. 158 RoP)The judge-rapporteur correctly held that, under these principles, neither a financial risk nor a likelihood of unenforceability is presented to the Court. The Claimant, as part of the PepsiCo group, is financially able to comply with a decision on costs. This has not, in any event not sufficiently, been contested by the Defendant. In fact, the Defendant confirms in its Application (par. 6 “no insolvency risk is at hand”.) The fact that the Pepsico group is not a party to these proceedings (par. 29-30 Application) does not mean that the Claimant is unable to comply with a possible decision on costs.

IPPT20240909, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Panel confirms case management orders judge-rapporteur (R. 333 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 29(d) RoP). Panel exercises its authority to order and extension of the time limit for lodging Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim together with any Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defence because of redacted versions of Defence in the Counterclaim (Part II – non-technical part) in the same way as the judge-rapporteur: two week extension from 14 August 2024 until 28 August 2024. The defendants in all three parallel proceedings have, when looked at in the light of the circumstances, almost seven weeks to prepare the replies to the reply to ‘Part II - non-technical part’ alone. This is more than the one-month period that would have been available without a nullity counterclaim for the statement in response to the infringement action with regard to the infringement action and the FRAND objection. No leave to appeal granted (R. 220.2 RoP). In issuing this order, the panel is not deviating from the cited orders of the Court of Appeal and the Düsseldorf Local Division.

IPPT20240805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Security (deposit) to be released when the period for requesting panel review has expired (Rule 333 RoP, Rule 352(2) RoP, Rule 45 Registry Rules). Double security – a deposit and a bank guarantee – can also be the reason and cause for a release decision.

IPPT20240722, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, AYLO v DISH
Application for panel review of Rule 262A RoP case management order admissible but unsuccessful on the merits (Rule 333 RoP). The three persons named by the applicants were rightly not excluded in the order of 3 July 2024 from access to the information to be classified as confidential on the functioning of the contested embodiments.

IPPT20230719, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Panel review of case management order judge-rapporteur (Rule 333 RoP) is of a marginal nature in the sense that it is limited to ascertaining whether the Judge-Rapporteur relied on the correct facts, whether he assessed them correctly and whether he made his decision within the bounds of reasonableness. Leave to appeal granted (Rule 220.2 RoP)

IPPT20230708, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Case management order. Leave to appeal dismissed for lack of appealable subject-matter (Rule 333(1) RoP). [case management order is to be reviewed by the panel] UPC_CoA_486/2023 APL_595643/2023 Decision (Order) of the UPC Court of Appeal issued on 21 March 2024, [IPPT20240321]. Amendment of case in Statement of Reply in response to the Statement of Defence with new facts, infringement arguments (equivalence) and claim permitted (Rule 263 RoP, Rule 13 RoP): consistent with the normative purpose of R. 13 RoP and, fitting into the procedurally-evolutive course of a judicial dispute. Deadline extension for Rejoinder to Statement of Reply with 2 weeks proportionate, reasonable and equitable (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, Rule 29)(c) RoP). Extended period does not affect Claimant's rights, nor does it affect the further procedural calendar already determined in this case (specifically, the dates of the interim conference and pleading date).

IPPT20240130, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Review of case management confidentiality order by judge-rapporteur (Rule 333 RoP) concerning discrepancy in the fines (€ 50.000 v € 250.000) set by the Local Division Paris and the Local Division Munich for breach of confidentiality orders (Rule 262 RoP, Rule 262A RoP) in parallel proceedings between the same parties concerning the same protected confidential information regarding two different patents. No justified need to harmonise the amount of the fine because one division is not bound by a decision in another division despite belonging to the same unified court. The Judge-Rapporteur was justified in considering that part of the confidential information had already been disclosed without a confidentiality restriction and that a lower amount of the fine would sufficiently protect the legitimate interests of the parties in the event of a breach. Therefore, a maximum fine amount of EUR 50,000 in case of breach is appropriate and proportionate in the contested confidentiality order and there is no need to set a higher maximum amount for the fine. No need for amendment of the order to avoid the potential risk of a double fine: it will be at the Court’s discretion, at the time of any breach, to decide on the appropriate amount of a fine to be paid, taking into account all elements in concreto, including any previous fine decided by the UPC Munich Local Division for the same breach. There is no grounds to bind the Paris Local Division, in case of breach and as requested by Dexcom, in cases where the Munich Local Division has already imposed a fine.

IPPT20240125, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fives v Reel
A decision by the judge-rapporteur granting a preliminary objection that the UPC lacks competence cannot be reviewed by the full panel on the basis of Rule 333 RoP, but may be appealed to the Court of Appeal as a final decision of the Court of First Instance (Rule 21.1 RoP, Rule 220(1)(a) RoP)
Rule 333.1 RoP does not apply directly. This is because Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure only applies to "procedural decisions or orders". The decision whose review the applicant seeks is not procedural. It follows from the term "procedural" that the decision may not be a final decision and thus not "terminating the proceedings". Nor does an analogous application of Rule 333.1 RoP apply in the present case. There is neither an unintended loophole nor a comparable situation of interest. Nor does the legislative history of the RoP indicate otherwise. In this respect, the plaintiff refers to comments made by the persons involved in the preparation of the RoP. From these remarks, the plaintiff deduces that they were of the opinion that Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure applies directly to a decision granting the objection. However, this cannot be inferred from the comments referred to by the plaintiff. The comments are very brief and do not make clear the specific context in which they stand. The decision of the Helsinki Local Chamber of 28 August 2023 - UPC_CFI_214/2023 - does not contradict this understanding.

IPPT20240124, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Requested leave to appeal confidentiality order by judge-rapporteur not admissible, until that order has first been reviewed by the panel in the pending review procedure (Rule 220(2) RoP, Rule 333(1) RoP). (See also: IPPT20240111, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei)

IPPT20240118, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Netgear v Huawei
Leave to amend the action to include claims of additional patent after the conclusion of limitation proceedings related thereto as granted by judge-rapporteur confirmed by the panel (Rule 263 RoP, Article 105a EPC). Rule 263 RoP leave to change claim or amend case is a procedural order to be made by the judge-rapporteur and subject to review by the panel (Rule 333 RoP and subsequent appeal (Rule 220 RoP). The request is unfounded. Assessment of the admissibility of the extension of the action is based solely on Rule 263 RoP and not on national law. The plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to assert the limited claims earlier before the conclusion of the limitation proceedings, also due to the risk of a further counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the second patent. In the context of the present proceedings or in the context of separate proceedings, the defendants must be granted the same time limits for their defence that would have been granted if they had filed a separate action, but no longer.

IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear

Notification by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 20(2) RoP) that a Preliminary objection is to be dealt with in the main proceedings is not subject to review by the panel (Rule 333(1)) RoP). The judge-rapporteur decides on this inadmissible application because of the objective of procedural economy, in particular the conservation of the time resources of the other members of the panel.

Advertisements

Rule 333 – Review of case management orders

Advertisements