Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

 Case Law
Rule 33: Application by a party for allocating a technically qualified judge

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 03/09/2024, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v. DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. (Case/ Registry number: APL_21943/2024, ORD_42716/2024)
Example of decision on competence of a division: "1) Art. 7(2) in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and the alleged damage may occur in that particular Contracting Member State. Where the damage is allegedly caused via the internet, the likelihood of such damage may arise from the possibility of obtaining products and/or using services from an internet site accessible within the territory of the Contracting Member State where the European patent has effect.
2) The identification of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur within the meaning of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, does not depend on criteria which do not appear in this provision and which are specific to the examination of the merits, such as the conditions for establishing an indirect infringement within the meaning of Art. 26 UPCA.
3) The place “where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur” as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements."

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 25/04/2024, Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG (Registry number: App_18259/2024 ORD_18484/2024)
Example of decision on the interpretation of the notion of “rapid decision”: “This court uses its discretion in denying the stay primarily because no ‘rapid decision’ in this sense is to be expected.”
“As the Munich Central Division has explained in Order no. 579547 of 20 November 2023, ACT_465342/2023, UPC_CFI_80/2023 that:
[T]he use of the word ‘rapid’ (…) as an adjective to “decision” suggests that there should be a concrete expectation (i.e. a known date in time) for a decision which date should be in the near future such that it is clearly expected to be delivered before unexpected decision by the UPC.”
“This Court follows this convincing reasoning and interprets the word ”rapid” alike. Applying this reasoning, no such “rapid decision” of the opposition proceeding is to be expected. The Munich Central division has considered it to be doubtful whether a decision that was expected in just over three months with notification of the decision and the grounds expected some months thereafter would be considered as a “rapid decision” for the purposes of Art. 33 (10) UPCA.”

Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division, Order dated 14/02/2024, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v. Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Case number UPC_CFI_239/2023 ORD_8243/2024)
Example of decision on the reasons to join the infringement action and the counterclaim: “Such a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of procedural expediency and avoids the risk of delay that might be involved with bifurcating. It is also preferable because it allows both issues – validity and infringement – to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel composed of the same judges. This is also in conformity with the preference of both parties.”

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 22/09/2023, N.V. Nutricia v. Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_201/2023, ORD_575922/2023)
Example of decision concerning time limit for the judge-rapporteur to submit the request to the President of the Court of First Instance: “Neither the Agreement nor the Rules of Procedure require or even mention a specific time frame for the panel resp. the judge-rapporteur submitting the request to the President of the Court of First Instance. Given that the President of the Court of First Instance will consult the judge rapporteur in the allocation process, 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. In the panel´s understanding, the consultation is not limited to the question of the relevant field of technology. Rather the consultation extends to the question of whether, in the view of the judge-rapporteur, the involvement of a technically qualified judge is necessary at all taking into account the issues in dispute. By its very nature, the earliest point at which such an assessment could be made is after the filing of the statement of defence.”