Rule 334 – Case management powers

Except where the Agreement, the Statute or these Rules provide otherwise, the judge-rapporteur, the presiding judge or the panel may:

(a) extend or shorten the period for compliance with any rule or order [Rule 9.3];

(b) adjourn or bring forward the interim conference or the oral hearing;

(c) communicate with the parties to instruct them about wishes or requirements of the Court;

(d) direct a separate hearing of any issue;

(e) decide the order in which issues are to be decided;

(f) exclude an issue from consideration;

(g) dismiss or decide on a claim after a decision on a preliminary issue makes a decision on further issues irrelevant to the outcome of the action;

(h) dismiss a claim summarily if it has no prospect of succeeding;

(i) consolidate any matter or issue or order them to be heard together;

(j) make any order pursuant to Rules 103 to 109.

Case law

IPPT20241230, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi
Requests to be decided by the judge-rapporteur or the panel. Procedural economy: request to amend the action based on a request to amend the patent  (R. 30 RoP, R. 263 RoP, R. 334(h) RoP))
The Judge-Rapporteur must keep in mind the principle of procedural economy not only with regard to the parties, but also as a representative for the bench as a whole. In the interests of procedural economy, it is not normally necessary, outside the standardised cases of opposition under Rule 19 RoP, for the panel to decide, in the context of a preliminary ruling under Rule 334 (h) RoP, on questions of substantial significance for the decision on the merits, such as the substantive admissibility of five requests for amendment of the action (R. 263 RoP), which are based on a request for amendment of the patent (R. 30 RoP). Substantive decisions of this scope are regularly to be left to the main proceedings, namely the oral proceedings, in particular the final decision by the panel.

IPPT20241125, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Dexcom v Abbott
No justification to reopen the debate after the oral hearing because of decision of Munich Regional Court  of 11 November 2024 (R. 334 and 336 RoP). This request made at a very late stage of the proceedings is not justified, since the decision in question does not concern the patent at issue in the present case, but its parent patent, which discloses another invention with similar but also different features. Moreover, the Regional Court of Munich, seized by an infringement action, did not examine the validity issue on the merits but in a context of a request for a stay with regard to the pending nullity proceedings before the Federal Patent Court. 

IPPT20241010, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
Request for adjournment of oral hearing because of outstanding order of the Court of Appeal concerning request for security for costs dismissed (Article 74(3) UPCA, R. 334 RoP). No indication that it may not be efficient and cost effective to hold the oral hearing at this stage. Contrary to the opinion of Defendant the Court must not await a final order of the Court of Appeal on the security of costs before making its own decision on the merits in this case.

IPPT20240909, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Case management order regarding and following separate hearing (R. 334(d) RoP, R. 105.5 RoP, R. 106 RoP). The video conference of 19 February 2024 is to be regarded as a separate hearing in accordance with Rule 334.d RoP.

IPPT20240219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Interim decisions following case management hearing (Rule 334(d) RoP, Rule 336 RoP, (Rule 105(5) RoP): Reserving right to schedule an interim conference (Rule 35(b) RoP). Allowing pleadings until the conclusion of the written procedure, which in addition to the topics addressed in the Rules of Procedure, may also address topics that have been raised at the hearing, provided that they do so immediately in the earliest written submission. Setting end date for written procedure. Setting date for oral hearing at 18 June 2024. The language of the hearing will be English (language of the proceedings is German). . Setting value of infringement action at € 1 million, of the three nullity counterclaims at € 1 million and of the proceedings at € 2 million. 

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Dexcom v Abbott

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Extension and alignment of deadline for filling Statement of Defence by multiple defendants in accordance with agreement between the parties at case management hearing, which is considered reasonable by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 23 RoP, Rule 334 RoP).

IPPT20240117, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Ex officio order judge-rapporteur to extend deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim for revocation and to reunite the claim and counterclaim workflows (Rule 9(3 RoP, Rule 311(1) RoP, Rule 334(a) RoP). Defence to the counterclaim for revocation not filed together with Reply to defence in the claim as required by Rule 29(a) RoP. The apparent misunderstanding of the relevant deadline [for Statement of defence to counterclaim for revocation] by Plant-e Knowledge will in this situation not be held against her; the consequences would be disproportionate.

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.