Rule 340 – Connection Joinder

1. In the interests of the proper administration of justice and of avoiding inconsistent decisions, where more than one action concerning the same patent (whether or not between the same parties) is pending before:

(a) different panels (whether in the same or different divisions); or

(b) different panels of the Court of Appeal, the panels may by agreement, at any time, after hearing the parties, order that two or more actions shall, on account of the connection between them, be heard together. Article 33 of the Agreement shall be respected.

2. The actions may subsequently be disjoined.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20240905, UPC CoA, Advanced Bionics v Med-EL - II
Connection joinder only possible within the competence limits of the competence regime of the UPCA (Article 33 UPCA, Rule 340 RoP). Referral of an action for infringement from a local division to the central division only possible with the the agreement of the parties involved.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20240719, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences
Patent maintained as amended by auxiliary request II. Connection joinder and competence of the Central Division (Rule 340 RoP, Article 33 UPCA). Coordination of revocation action and counterclaims for revocation through consolidation through consolidation before the local division is not possible. The competence of the Central Division cannot be derogated by virtue of the joinder of the proceedings. Interpreting Rule 340 ‘RoP’ to require a joint hearing for the revocation proceedings before a panel comprising all judges from both the central and local divisions […] lacks a legal basis in the ‘UPCA’ and the ‘RoP’, nor is it supported by EU law principles.

IPPT20240222, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, MED-EL v Advanced Bionics
Request for joint hearing of revocation and infringement actions rejected (Rule 340 RoP, article 33 UPCA). Inadmissible because it conflicts with jurisdictional regime of article 33(1) and (4) UPCA. Even if the plaintiff had been granted a right to choose between the local and the central division when bringing the infringement action pursuant to Art. 33(5), first sentence, UPCA, the exercise of this right to choose in favour of the local division may not be subsequently overridden by a joinder pursuant to R. 340.1. In any case the discretion provided in Rule 340 RoP because it does not serve the interest of a proper administration of justice. The nullity proceedings before the Central Division are already at an  more advanced stage and a referral toe the Central Division a requested would be accompanied by a change in the language of the proceedings. 

IPPT20240227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences
Request to hear the revocation action together with the counterclaims in the Munich Local Division proceedings rejected (Rule 340(1) RoP). The application of that Rule does not appear to be actual, as no hearing seems to have been set in the two proceedings.