Rule 336 – Exercise of case management powers

The Court may exercise its case management powers on the application by a party or of its own motion, unless otherwise provided.

Case Law:

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.

IPPT20250409 UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Request to separate proceedings rejected (R. 336 RoP): e Statement of defence in one brief by way of upload to the CMS. R.262A RoP may not address conflicts that a representative may have when representing various defendants in parallel. 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Court order to use one workflow (R. 9 RoP, R. 336 RoP). There is no plausible reason to file identical requests submitting identical arguments in multiple workflows instead of combining them, even where defendants of the same group are concerned, especially where all defendants are represented by identical counsel. This causes tremendous unnecessary work on the side of all parties concerned as well as for the court. 

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. 

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.