UPC Court of Appeal

2024

IPPT20240502, UPC CoA, PMA v AWM
Suspensive effect given to appeal of restitution order (that that shall take place from 5 June 2024) to ensure that there is time to decide on the appeal before the impugned order is enforced (Article 74 UPCA). No decision on the costs since this order is not a final order or decision concluding an action (Rule 242.1 RoP).

IPPT20240501, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Keestrack v Geha Laverman
Withdrawal of proceedings pursuant to a settlement (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 11 RoP). Restitution of part of the court fee appropriate. With the case being terminated at an early stage, i.e. after the issuance of the summons and before the filing of a reply by the respondent, and therefore before the 'written proceedings' are concluded, 60% of the court fees paid will be refunded (Rule 370.9(b) RoP). Delay in response considered timely filed (Rule 9.2 RoP). The delay in the respondent's response is apparently due to problems with CMS, and does not affect the applicant's legal position (other than delay). The response is therefore considered timely filed in this case, also given the timely submission by email.

IPPT20240426, UPC CoA, AIM Sport v Supponor
Infringement proceedings and Provisional measures proceedings are two different proceedings (Article 32.1(a) en (c) UPCA). The fact that the basis for both proceedings is the same – the same infringement – does not lead to a different conclusion. The “Information about appeal” in the decision should have distinguished between the separate proceedings, such that in the infringement proceedings (ACT_545571/2023) the time period of two months applied and in the provisional measure proceedings (ACT_551054/2023) the applicable time period was 15 days. Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations: excusable error about applicable appeal time period because of non-obvious incorrect information provided by Court of First Instance, but outcome inf future cases may be different now that the Court of Appeal has clarified the wording used in Rule 220.1(c) RoP.

IPPT20240417, UPC CoA, Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics
Change of language of the proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness: all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 323 RoP) These should primarily be related to the specific case and the position of the parties. If the outcome of balancing of interests is equal, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor. As a general rule and absent specific relevant circumstances pointing in another direction, the language of the patent as the language of the proceedings cannot be considered to be unfair in respect of the claimant. Appeal admissible despite Curio Bioscience’s cut-and-paste-mistakes in the heading of the Statement of claim (Rule 225 RoP). The correct information according to R.225(a) – (d) RoP was present later in Section 7 of the said appeal submission and there were no ambiguities as to who was the appellant and who was the respondent.  No decision on the reimbursement of legal costs will be made in this appeal, since this order of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision, i.e. not an order or decision concluding the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 118 RoP, Rule 242 RoP

IPPT20240411, UPC CoA, Neo Wireless v Toyota
Time period for lodging appeal against procedural order’ (Rule 220(2) RoP, Rule 224(1)(a) RoP)
If an appeal is lodged against a ‘procedural order’ under Rule 220(2) RoP and leave (i) is granted in the impugned order itself, the Statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave. If the decision to grant leave to appeal (ii) is contained in a separate order on a request to that effect (which separate order must be issued within 15 days of the impugned order, cf R.220(3) RoP), the Statement of appeal has to be lodged within 15 days from the date of service of this separate order containing the decision to grant leave to appeal.

IPPT20240410, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Composition of the panel of the Court of Appeal. When an appeal does not concern a field of technology, the Court of Appeal does not have to assign technically qualified judges (in the field of technology concerned) (Article 9 UPCA). Public access to written pleadings and evidence (Article 45 UPCA, Rule 262 RoP). Appeal dismissed. Balance of interests in the present proceedings in favour of granting access to statement of claim based on an interest of a general nature after the proceedings had come to an end by a settlement. The general principle is that the register and the proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interests involved is such that they are to be kept confidential. Interests to be balanced. The interests of the parties or other affected persons include the protection of confidential information and personal data (’the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons’). The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of proceedings. Public order is at stake e.g. when a request is abusive or security interests are at stake. A “reasoned request” R.262.1(b) RoP means a request providing all the information that is necessary to make the required balance of interest. General interest of a member of the public that written pleadings and evidence are made available allows for a better understanding and scrutiny. Interest of protection of the integrity of proceedings ensures that the parties are able to bring forward their arguments and evidence and that this is decided upon by the Court in an impartial and independent manner, without influence and interference from external parties in the public domain. The general interest of public access and the interest of protection of integrity of the proceedings are usually properly balanced and duly weighed against each other, if access is given after the proceedings of an instance have come to an end by a decision. The balance is usually also in favour of allowing access if proceedings have come to an end before a decision and the integrity of proceedings no longer plays a role. A direct interest, such as regarding validity or infringement, may be immediately present and, in weighing against the general interest of integrity of proceedings, the balance will generally be in favour of granting access. The Court may, however, for the purpose of appropriate protection of the integrity of proceedings, impose certain conditions on granting access, such as the obligation for that member of the public to keep the written pleadings and evidence he was given access to confidential as long as the proceedings have not come to an end. 

IPPT20240409, UPC CoA, Panasonic v Xiaomi
If Rule 271(1) RoP – service of Statement of claim at an electronic address provided for service  – applied in the First Instance, it also applies in appeal. In appeal proceedings, Chapter 2 – Service (Rules 270 – 279) of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) applies mutatis mutandis. Consequently, if during the proceedings at the Court of First Instance, Rule 271.1 RoP applied (in short: an electronic address for service was provided by the defendant or his representative) and/or a representative of the respondent accepted service on behalf of the respondent, then pursuant to R.271.2 RoP further service – not only in the proceedings at first instance, but also in appeal proceedings - shall be effected within the closed electronic system of the UPC Case Management System (CMS).

IPPT20240403, UPC CoA, Juul Labs v NJOY Netherlands
Appeal and the appellant’s request to set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance to rectify the name of the defendant (“Juul Labs, Inc”) to read “Juul Labs International, Inc.” rejected [Rule 9 RoP]. If the claimant has not correctly named the defendant in the statement initiating the proceedings, the Court may allow the claimant to rectify the error. The request can be granted if the defendant is not unreasonably prejudiced by the incorrect statement of name and its rectification. As a rule, there will be no unreasonable prejudice if, despite the incorrect statement of name, it must have been clear to the defendant and to the Court, based on the circumstances of the case, that the claimant intended the statement for revocation to be directed against the defendant. Direct appeal of order of judge-rapporteur admissible as explicitly provided for in Rule 21(1) RoP, no prior review by the panel required in this particular case. No decision on costs. Rule 242.1 RoP is to be interpreted to mean that if the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision concluding an action, the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, will not issue an order for costs in respect of the proceedings at first instance and at appeal. However, the outcome of the appeal must be considered when, in the final decision on the action at hand, the Court determines whether and to what extent a party must bear the costs of the other party because it was unsuccessful within the meaning of Article 69 UPCA.

IPPT20240321, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei
Determination of the judge-rapporteur to deal with the Preliminary objection in the main proceedings is a case management decision that must be reviewed by the panel at the request of the defendant (Rule 333(1) RoP). As a general principle, unless provided otherwise, a case management decision or order made by the judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge can only be appealed if such decision or order has first been reviewed by the panel pursuant to R.333.1 RoP. Judge-rapporteur not authorized to decide on application for review under Rule 333(1) RoP. Rule 333(4) RoP explicitly provides that the panel shall decide the Application for review. As can be inferred from Article 52(2) UPCA, case management during the written procedure and the interim procedure is mandated by the panel to the judge-rapporteur. In accordance therewith, Rule 331(1) RoP provides that case management is the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur subject to Rule 102 and Rule 333 RoP. If a Preliminary objection is rejected, as an exception to the general principle, leave to appeal may be given by the judge-rapporteur without prior panel review under Rule 333(1) RoP being required (Rule 21(1) RoP). If leave is granted, the unsuccessful party thus has the choice to either file an appeal or an application for review under R.333.1 RoP. If the judge-rapporteur did not grant leave to appeal, a party may apply for a panel review. The resulting panel decision may then subsequently be appealed if leave has been granted by the panel under R.220.2 RoP, or it may be subject to discretionary review under R.220.3 RoP. An Application under Rule 333(1) RoP in the event of a Rule 20(2) RoP notification is not inadmissible due to a lack of a justified interest. 

IPPT20240314, UPC CoA, Abbott v Dexcom
Inadmissible appeal (Rule 220(2) RoP). Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as such, cannot be withdrawn. 

IPPT20240219, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei
Leave to amend case by adding new patent (Rule 263 RoP). The principle of due process requires that, where a new patent is added to an action already pending, the defendant should have the same time to respond to the new patent - and, where appropriate, to bring an action for revocation - as it would have had if a new action had been brought in respect of that patent.  Extension of time limit for Statement of defense to 18 April 2024 (three months after Order of 18 January 2024) (IPPT20240118)

IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, AIM Sport v Supponor
Parties requested to comment on non-compliance with Rule 224.1(b) RoP, providing that a Statement of Appeal of an order has to be filed within 15 days of service of an order referred to in Rule 220.1(c) RoP. Under “Information about Appeal” the CFI has indicated that the decision could be appealed within two months of the date of notification of the decision, referring to Article 73(1) UPCA and Rule 220.1(a) and Rule 224.1(a) RoP concerning an appeal against a decision, such as a decision in an infringement action, while in one of the two actions AIM sought a preliminary injunction order pursuant to Article 62 UPCA.

IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, Nanostring v 10x Genomics II

Preliminary injunction revoked. It is, on the balance of probability, more likely than not that the subject-matter of claim 1 in the version of the main request will prove to be obvious (article 56 EPC) Likely that for a person skilled in the art at the priority date of the patent at issue, after successful application of an in vitro multiplex method for the detection of ASMs, the next step was to consider transferring the method to an in situ environment. Reasonable expectation of success from a technical point of view. Arguments regarding lack of inventive step auxiliary request, although only presented at oral hearing, are in the present case part of the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal (Rule 222 RoP). Applicants defence not unduly disadvantaged. Standard of proof regarding order for provisional measures. Burden of proof. Facts giving rise to the entitlement to initiate proceedings and the infringement or imminent infringement of the patent, as well as other circumstances favourable to the infringement action, are to be presented and proven by the rightholder, whereas the burden of presentation and proof with regard to the facts from which the lack of validity of the patent is derived and other circumstances favourable to the invalidity or revocation lies with the opponent. Claim interpretation principles in accordance with article 69 EPC and the Protocol on its Interpretation. These principles for the interpretation of a patent claim apply equally to the assessment of the infringement and the validity of a European patent. Munich Local Division had jurisdiction for provisional measures because attacked embodiments had been offered in Germany (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). A distinction must be made between the formal requirements of Rule 206(2)(a) RoP (checked by the Registry) and the substantive requirements of Rule 206(2)(b) to (e) RoP (checked by the court). 

IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, Nanostring v 10x Genomics
Stay of proceedings because of insolvency not justified (Article 41(3) UPCA, Rule 311(1) RoP). Party is declared insolvent only after the conclusion of the oral proceedings and the legal dispute is ready for decision. At this stage of the proceedings, the parties have already taken all procedural steps and all costs have already been incurred by the parties. If the decision or order affects the bankruptcy estate, it does not differ from the effect that a decision or order issued before the declaration of bankruptcy would have had. Furthermore, the interest in a timely order weighs particularly heavily in proceedings for interim relief, as is the case here. Furthermore, it leads to a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties if events that only occurred after the conclusion of the oral hearing are no longer to be taken into account in the decision-making process. Confirmed by comparable provisions in the national civil procedural law of several contracting member states of the Convention. 

IPPT20240215, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Court fee of € 11.000 is payable for appeal under Rule 220(1)(a) RoP against an order determining which party is to bear the costs of the proceedings in the context of the dismissal of an application for interim measures under Rule 360 RoP. (Rule 228 RoP). In the absence of a specific fee, the fee is to be paid for the case that is most comparable to the present case according to the system of the table of fees. The Table of Fees determines the fee for an appeal under Rule 220.1(a) RoP based on the nature of the action or application decided by the Court of First Instance. Under this system, the provision providing for a fee of €11,000 for an appeal under Rule 220.1(c) RoP concerning a request for provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA applies mutatis mutandis to the present appeal proceedings. This is because these appeal proceedings also concern an appeal against an order terminating proceedings relating to a request for provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA. 

IPPT20240208, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Public access to register requires representation (Rule 8 RoP, Rule 262 RoP, Article 47 UPCA, Article 48 UPCA). ‘Parties’ requiring representation pursuant to Rule 8(1) RoP encompasses also (i) a third party affected by an order or decision such as a third party under Rule 190 RoP and (ii) a member of the public under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Opt-out applicants are expressly exempted in Rule 5(4) RoP..Members of the public requesting access to the register pursuant to Rule 262 RoP are in an adversarial situation where representation is called for.

IPPT20240118, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Application to order suspensive effect to appeal of order to bear the (to be assessed) costs of the proceedings up to a maximum of € 200.000 dismissed (article 74 UPCA, Rule 223 (1) RoP). Admissible application: A decision under Rule 360 RoP by which the court has dismissed an action because there is no need to adjudicate on the merits and includes the decision on the costs of the proceedings is to be be regarded as a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a) RoP and not as a decision within the meaning of Rule 223.5 RoP. Application unfounded: Interest of the plaintiff regarding further costs for cost assessment procedure does not generally outweigh the interest of the successful party within the meaning of Rule 151 RoP in a quick decision on the costs of the proceedings. Suspensive effect also not justified because if there are errors in the appealed order, they are in any case not errors that led to a manifestly erroneous order.

IPPT20240111, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei

Request for discretionary review and appeal allowed of decision of the judge-rapporteur not to allow review of order by the panel that a preliminary objection is to be dealt within the main proceedings (Rule 220(3) RoP). As a general principle, unless provided otherwise, a case management decision or order made by the judge-rapporteur or the presiding judge can only be appealed if such decision or order has first been reviewed by the panel pursuant to Rule 333.1. Request for a discretionary review allowed of decision of judge-rapporteur on the admissibility of the application to have his decision reviewed by the panel pursuant to Rule 333.1 RoP, rather than have the panel decide on the admissibility of the application. Denying the request only justified if the underlying reasoning of the judge-rapporteur would be accurate. Under these circumstances, the standing judge considers it justified to allow the request for discretionary review to the extent that the applicant is allowed to appeal the decision of 11 December 2023.

IPPT20240110, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Application to intervene in appeal refused. Interest in the result of the action (Rule 313(1) RoP) means a direct and present interest in the grant by the Court of the order or decision as sought by the party, whom the prospective intervener whishes to support and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific request sought by the supported party, and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties. A similiarity between two cases is not sufficient.

2023

IPPT20231218, UPC CoA, OPPO v Panasonic 

IPPT20231219, UPC CoA, OPPO v Panasonic

IPPT20231220, UPC CoA, OPPO v Panasonic
Procedural order requests where no technical issues are at hand, can be adjudicated by three legally qualified judges of the Court of Appeal (Article 9 UPCA). Requests by Appellant for shortening the time period for filing the Statement of response by Respondent in appeal rejected; disproportionate to the time the Appellant has itself taken for the Statement of appeal (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 224 RoP).

IPPT20231211, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore 

Parties to address whether a third party requesting access to documents under Rule 262 RoP needs to be represented as a party before the UPC under Rule 8 RoP.

IPPT20231106, UPC CoA, Ocado
Appeal from the order to grant a third party access to documents (Rule 262 RoP) shall have suspensive effect, to ensure that there is time to adjudicate Ocado’s appeal on the merits from the Order to grant a third party access to documents, which will be enforceable on 7 November 2023 and would make the appeal devoid of purpose. (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 262 RoP) Application ex officio handled as having extreme urgency by the standing judge (Rule 223(4) RoP).

IPPT20231013, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis
Valid date of service of statement of claim with Annexes (Rule 271 RoP). A Statement of claim, even if it refers to or announces the later submission of Annexes, can be validly served on a defendant, provided that the Statement of claim without the Annexes enables the defendant to assert its rights in legal proceedings before the courts of the UPC. A Statement of claim must therefore at least state with certainty the subject matter and cause of action. Only annexes that are indispensable for the understanding of the subject matter and the cause of action must be served (and where necessary translated) on a defendant, together with the Statement of claim. Extension of terms for Preliminary objections and Statement of defense because of unavailability of Annexes (Rules 13, 19 and 23 RoP). If a claimant did not upload the Annexes simultaneously with the Statement of claim in the CMS, and thus did not comply with Rule 13.2, and as a consequence these have not been available when the representative of the defendant accessed the CMS with the Access Code contained in the Notice, this in itself is sufficient to constitute a reasoned request by a defendant for an extension of the terms mentioned in Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP for lodging a Preliminary objection and the Statement of defense, regardless of the nature and/or content of the Annexes. Failing any specific circumstances of an individual case which calls for another term, which have to be brought forward by the claimant, the extension of the terms mentioned in Rules 19.1 and 23 shall compensate for and thus be equal to the period during which the Annexes have not been available after service of the Statement of claim contrary to Rule 13.2 RoP.