Rule 34 – Request by the judge-rapporteur for allocating a technically qualified judge

1. The judge-rapporteur may at any time during the written procedure, after consulting the presiding judge and the parties, request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate a technically qualified judge to the panel.

2. Where a technically qualified judge is allocated to the panel, the judge-rapporteur may at any time consult the technically qualified judge.

Case Law

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Occlutech v Lepu Medical
Request for allocating a technically qualified judge in summary proceedings (Article 8(5) UPCA, R. 34.1 RoP, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). The respondents have lodged an objection to the application for interim measures. In their statement of grounds for objection, they question not only the infringement of the patent in dispute, but also its legal validity.

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Imusyn v BAG Diagnostics
Request to assign a technically qualified judge in summary proceedings (Article 8(5) UPCA, R. 34 RoP, R. 211 RoP). Although the appointment of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in R. 34 RoP and thus in the provisions governing the main proceedings, Art. 8(5) sentence 2 UPCA generally grants the panel, and thus also in summary proceedings, the right to call in such a judge on its own initiative after hearing the parties if it deems this appropriate.

IPPT20250501, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International

Request to assign an additional technically qualified judge to the panel in summary proceedings (R. 205 RoP). Although the involvement of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in R. 34 RoP and thus in the provisions on the main proceedings, Art. 8(5) sentence 2 UPCA grants the panel in general, and thus also in summary proceedings, the right to call in such a judge on its own initiative after hearing the parties if it considers this appropriate

IPPT20241230, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Request to assign another technically qualified judge (R. 34 RoP) because of resignation of judge (Article 9(2) Statutes)

IPPT20240902, UPC CFI, President, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Application for review of the allocation of technically qualified judge dismissed (Rule 9.1 RoP, Rules 33-34 RoP). The technically qualified judge is one of the judges of the panel as defined in Articles 19 and 20 UPCA (concerning the Court of First Instance) and the legal texts governing the UPC do not provide the opportunity for the parties to “make suggestion regarding (…) the technical or other relevant background” of one of the judges allocated to the panel, unlike in the case of the appointment of a court expert (R 185.2 RoP).