Article 8

Composition of the panels of the Court of First Instance

1.   Any panel of the Court of First Instance shall have a multinational composition. Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of this Article and to Article 33(3)(a), it shall sit in a composition of three judges.

2.   Any panel of a local division in a Contracting Member State where, during a period of three successive years prior or subsequent to the entry into force of this Agreement, less than fifty patent cases per calendar year on average have been commenced shall sit in a composition of one legally qualified judge who is a national of the Contracting Member State hosting the local division concerned and two legally qualified judges who are not nationals of the Contracting Member State concerned and are allocated from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3) on a case by case basis.

3.   Notwithstanding paragraph 2, any panel of a local division in a Contracting Member State where, during a period of three successive years prior or subsequent to the entry into force of this Agreement, fifty or more patent cases per calendar year on average have been commenced, shall sit in a composition of two legally qualified judges who are nationals of the Contracting Member State hosting the local division concerned and one legally qualified judge who is not a national of the Contracting Member State concerned and is allocated from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3). Such third judge shall serve at the local division on a long term basis, where this is necessary for the efficient functioning of divisions with a high work load.

4.   Any panel of a regional division shall sit in a composition of two legally qualified judges chosen from a regional list of judges, who shall be nationals of the Contracting Member States concerned, and one legally qualified judge who shall not be a national of the Contracting Member States concerned and who shall be allocated from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3).

5.   Upon request by one of the parties, any panel of a local or regional division shall request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3) an additional technically qualified judge with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned. Moreover, any panel of a local or regional division may, after having heard the parties, submit such request on its own initiative, where it deems this appropriate.

In cases where such a technically qualified judge is allocated, no further technically qualified judge may be allocated under Article 33(3)(a).

6.   Any panel of the central division shall sit in a composition of two legally qualified judges who are nationals of different Contracting Member States and one technically qualified judge allocated from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3) with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned. However, any panel of the central division dealing with actions under Article 32(1)(i) shall sit in a composition of three legally qualified judges who are nationals of different Contracting Member States.

7.   Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 to 6 and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, parties may agree to have their case heard by a single legally qualified judge.

8.   Any panel of the Court of First Instance shall be chaired by a legally qualified judge.

See also: Rule 33 RoP

Case Law

IPPT20240129, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Request, with the consent of the parties, to assign an additional technically qualified judge to the panel  for provisional measures application (article 8(5) UPCA). Appropriate because of the requested provisional measures, which requires examining reasonable doubts as to the validity of the patent in the technically demanding field of genetic engineering. The ordering of provisional measures can only be considered if the legal validity of the patent in dispute is sufficiently secured (Article 62 (4) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 211(2) RoP. It is therefore incumbent on the panel to obtain a sufficient picture of the legal validity on the basis of the parties' submissions and, in particular, to examine whether any objections raised against the validity of the patent in suit are likely to give rise to reasonable doubts as to the validity of the patent in suit (UPC_CFI_452/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), order of 11 December 2023 [IPPT20231211]). Although the involvement of a technically qualified judge ex officio is only mentioned in the Rules of Procedure in Rule 34 RoP and thus in the provisions on the main proceedings, Article 8(5) UPCA grants the panel in general and thus also in summary proceedings the right, after hearing the parties, to involve such a judge on its own initiative if it considers this appropriate (see also UPC_CFI_2/2023 (LK Munich) [IPPT20230919], UPC_CFI_214/2023 (LK Helsinki [IPPT20231020]).

IPPT20240125, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Request at panel’s initiative for a technically qualified judge in provisional measures proceedings (Rule 211(2) RoP, Article 8(5) UPCA, Article 62(4) UPCA). Sensible and advisable to also involve technically qualified judge already in the present proceedings because the respondents deal extensively with the legal status of the patent in dispute in support of their request for examination. 

IPPT20230922, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nutricia v Nestlé

Request for the allocation of a technically qualified judge postponed until the statement of defence has been lodged (article 8 UPCA, Rule 33 RoP). The submission should take place at a stage in the written procedure where the judge-rapporteur could possibly have a first rough assessment of whether an additional technically qualified judge is needed or not. […]. By its very nature, the earliest point at which such an assessment could be made is after the filing of the statement of defence.