Rule 210 – Oral hearing

1. Where the Court decides to summon the parties to an oral hearing, the date for the oral hearing shall be set as soon as possible after the date of receipt of the Application for provisional measures.

2. The Court may order the parties to provide further information, documents and other evidence before or during the oral hearing, including evidence to enable the Court to make its decision in accordance with Rule 211. Part 2 of these Rules on Evidence shall be applicable only to the extent determined by the Court.

3. Rules 111 to 116 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Where the applicant is absent from the oral hearing without a reasonable excuse, the Court shall reject the Application for provisional measures.

4. The decision of the Court on the Application for provisional measures shall be given in writing as soon as possible after the closure of the oral hearing. If the Court deems appropriate, its decision may be given orally to the parties at the end of the oral hearing, prior to providing its decision in writing.

Case Law

IPPT20251001, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
Summons issued to parties for an oral hearing  (R. 210.1 RoP) . Deadlines set for filing documents (Rule 209.1) 

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Menarini
No postponement of scheduled oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings, further instructions (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 209.1(b) RoP). Due to the inherent urgency of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement of the hearing can only be considered in very special circumstances. No special circumstances are present or asserted by Defendants.

IPPT20250717, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Application to postpone the date of the oral hearing for interim measures not granted (R. 210 RoP, R. 9 RoP). Due to the urgent nature of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement can only be considered in very special circumstances. This does not automatically include the absence of the respondent's legal and patent attorney representatives due to holidays. In particular, it is generally reasonable to expect a legal representative to either interrupt their holiday in order to attend such oral proceedings or to take their holiday at a later date, or to send an instructed representative to the oral proceedings.

IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement (R. 210(3) RoP, R. 116 RoP, R. 355 RoP). Pursuant to R. 210(3) RoP, Rules 111 to 116 of the Rules of Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to summary proceedings. On this basis, the court is not obliged to postpone a procedural step, including a decision on the merits, solely because a party was not present at the oral hearing (R. 116(2) RoP). According to R. 116(3) RoP, a party not represented at the oral hearing shall be treated as if it were relying solely on its written submissions. Accordingly, the Local Chamber based its order on the respondent's submissions in the statement of opposition. 

IPPT20240925, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Case management order regarding evidence during oral hearing in PI proceedings (R. 210 RoP). Evidence in PI proceedings is generally and primarily to be submitted in writing (R. 170.1 (a) and (b) RoP), with particular importance being attached to the submission of affidavits (R. 170.2 (h) RoP). In addition, the submission of physical objects, in particular devices, products, embodiments, exhibits and models (R. 170.1 (c) RoP), and of electronic files and audio/video files (R. 170.1 (d) RoP) may be an option. The Court does not summon witnesses in PI proceedings.