Article 30

Print this page

1. Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings.
2. Where the action in the court first seised is pending at first instance, any other court may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seised has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.
3. For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.

 

UPC Case Law

 

IPPT20241029, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). Parallel jurisdiction during the transitional period also includes actions for a declaration of non-infringement, although such actions are not explicitly mentioned in Article 83.1 UPCA. An action for a declaration of non-infringement is, after all, the mirror of an action for infringement (cf. e.g. ECJ, 6 December 1994, C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, Tatry). The Court finds that there are not sufficient reasons for staying the UPC infringement proceedings because of Belgian proceedings for a declaration of non-infringement and fot revocation (Article 30 Brussels I recast). The fact that a final decision by the UPC may include remedies also covering Belgium does not lead to a different conclusion.

 

IPPT20241017, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard
The Court will not stay the related revocation action (Article 30 Brussel I recast, R. 295m RoP). The reasons listed, the interests of the parties and procedural economy outweigh the risk that UPC CoA and BGH proceedings may become pending in parallel (and the related risk of contradictory decisions).

 

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Stay  of provisional measures proceedings because of pending related action is incompatible with their urgent nature (Article 30(1) Brussels Ibis). 

 

IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott 
Lis pendens. The Court uses its discretion in case of “related actions” (Article 30(2) Brussels Ibis) to maintain jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the entire European patent EP 866, including its German part: not in the interests of the proper administration of justice either to decline jurisdiction in favour of the German national court or to stay proceedings pending the decision of the national court.