Rule 335 – Varying or revoking orders

The power of the Court to make a case management order includes a power to vary or revoke such order.

Case law

Court of Appeal:

IPPT20260428, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application to revoke security for costs order rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 336 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not only apply to cases referred to in Art. 59-62 UPCA. […]. Nor does Art. 69(4) UPCA suggest that the requirement to provide security for costs should be the exception. The purpose of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA is to protect the opposing party from difficulties in enforcing a claim for reimbursement of costs. There are no concerns regarding the security order under the Enforcement Directive. No basis for referral to CJEU (Article 21 UPCA). For there to be jurisdiction, the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the EU law, the Enforcement Directive and TRIPS agreement, do not prevent the imposition of a security for costs order. For this reason alone, a referral to the CJEU is out of the question. No extension of deadline for providing security (R. 9.3 RoP). Although the Court has the power to revoke or amend an order for security for costs under R. 335 RoP, applicants cannot usually rely on the Court granting an application for revocation or amendment.

Court of First Instance:

IPPT20260226, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek

Suspension of inspection of files by a third party granted in light of applicant’s request for a panel review. (Rule 262.1(b) RoP, Rule 335 RoP , Rule 333 RoP). A judge-rapporteur whose procedural order or decision is subject to review by the panel may be entitled to and, if applicable, also obliged to suspend their order or decision pursuant to R. 335 RoP. Suspension ensures that the forthcoming order or decision of the panel review is not interfered with by compliance with the order or decision, which could render the review ineffective.

IPPT20250626, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Visibly v Easee
If a party is declared insolvent the parties’ representatives are still able to file the stay application under Rule 311.1 RoP.  A stay according to R. 311 RoP is generally a stay of the proceedings as a whole. Due to the stay of the proceedings the three Defendants are no longer obliged to provide the ordered security. This is independent of the fact that the Local Division's power to revoke the security order under R. 335 RoP.

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.