Rule 363 – Orders dismissing manifestly inadmissible claims

1. Orders under Rules 360, 361 and 362 shall be taken by the panel upon the recommendation of the judge-rapporteur.

2. Where the decision is taken by the Court of First Instance pursuant to Rules 360, 361 and 362 it is a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a).

Case Law

UPC Court of Appeal

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Inadmissible request for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of an order rejecting – without leave to appeal – the ‘R.361 RoP request’ to declare the revocation action manifestly inadmissible (Rule 361 RoP). Leave to appeal as provided for in Rule 220.2 RoP required because the provision of Rule 363(2) RoP that a “decision  […] pursuant to Rules […] 361 […] is a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a)” (for which leave to appeal is not required) only concerns orders granting a ´R.361 RoP request´. An order denying a R.361 RoP request is a case management order as meant in R.333.1 RoP that cannot be directly appealed but can only be reviewed by the panel.

UPC Court of First Instance

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz
Court exercises discretion to postpone decision on absolute bar to proceeding with counterclaim for revocation against the German part of the patent because of a decision by the Bundespatentgericht until after main hearing of 1 July 2025 since both parties do not want to jeopardize the main hearing (R. 362 RoP, R. 363 RoP).