Rule 302 – Plurality of claimants or patents

1. The Court may order that proceedings commenced by a plurality of claimants or in respect of a plurality of patents be heard in separate proceedings.

2. Where the Court orders a separation of proceedings the Court shall decide on the payment of a new court fee or court fees in accordance with Part 6.

3. The Court may order that parallel infringement or revocation proceedings relating to the same patent or patents and before the same local or regional division or the central division or the Court of Appeal be heard together where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

Case law

Court of First Instance

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
As the holders of the various national parts of the contested patent,the applicants were entitled to assert these jointly in a single action (R. 302 RoP). 

IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Moderna
Discretionary order to separate counterclaim for revocation proceedings into two counterclaims, one concerning each patent. (Rule 302.1 RoP). Payment of court fees also warrants separation in counterclaims for revocation – new court fees of EUR 20,000 due. (Rule 370.4 RoP, Rule 26 RoP). 

IPPT20250904, UPC LD Munich, Belparts v IMI Hydronic
Parallel proceedings not heard together (R. 302.3 RoP). Regardless of the consent voiced by IMI […] The prerequisite that the two proceedings are pending 'before the same local or regional division or central division' is not met, since the counterclaim for infringement is pending with a different division to the infringement action
 

IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin
Hearing together of two parallel actions based on the same patent concerning the same alleged infringing product (R. 302 RoP) in view of the very similar arguments put forward in defence, and in view of the parallel evidence preservation measures that were carried out and which were the subject of almost identical criticism in defence, it is good administrative practice to examine the two cases together and, to that end, to order their joinder. 

IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - IV
IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - III
Separation of proceedings ordered (R. 302 RoP) between national parts of European bundle patent ready for decision and the national part of the patent-in-suit concerning the United Kingdom, which is not ready for decision yet, following the decision of the European Court of Justice in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - II
Separation of proceedings ordered (R. 302 RoP) between national parts of European bundle patent ready for decision and the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, which are not ready for decision yet: a fundamental question of European Law concerning the international jurisdiction towards a defendant domiciled outside the EU following the decision of the European Court of Justice in re C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte)

IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear – separate workflow

After leave granted to amend the case by Order of 11 December 2023 by including a second patent, the defendants may comment on the question whether the two patents  are to be heard in separate proceedings (Rule 302(1) RoP). The legal hearing to be granted to the defendants can be granted most clearly within the CMS by separating the subject matter of the extension of the action. This is because a separate workflow is then available for the action and for further possible defence submissions (objection; action for annulment; etc.). 

IPPT20231204, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce 

Separate infringement proceedings ordered for two different patents (Rule 302 RoP), no separate proceedings for the two different defendants (Rule 303 RoP). The patents in dispute can each be challenged in terms of their legal status. As a result, a different course of proceedings is possible and not unlikely. The parties have therefore rightly not opposed such a separation of proceedings. In the view of the local division, such a separation of proceedings should take place as early as possible to facilitate handling.