Case Law
Rule 313: Application to intervene

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 26/06/2024, Dolby International AB v. HP PPS Sverige AB, HP International SARL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Deutschland GmbH, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP Austria GmbH, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Finland Oy, Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP France SAS (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI_457/2023, ORD_37232/2024)
Example of decision on the legal interest to lodge an application to intervene: "1. The legal interest required for the admissibility of the intervention is given if the intervener has a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the supported party.
2. Such a legal interest can be affirmed if the patent in dispute was introduced into a patent pool by the plaintiff, the intervener was entrusted with the performance of the plaintiff’s FRAND obligations and with the licensing of the portfolio including the patent in dispute and the defendant invokes the fact that the other party did not fulfil its FRAND obligations due to alleged inadequacies of the intervener’s licence offers."

Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 6/05/2024, Photon Wave, Seoul Viosys / Laser Components (Case number: UPC_CFI_440/2023 ORD_18404/2024)
Example of decision on the rejection of the intervener’s independent applications: “According to rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure, "an intervener shall be treated as a party unless the court decides otherwise". As such, the intervener has the rights attaching to party status and participates in the proceedings, subject nevertheless, in accordance with rule 313.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to the intervention being "made in whole or in part in support of a claim", which means that the intervener may not develop claims contrary to the party he supports and may not develop claims independently and in accordance with procedural arrangements that are distinct from those offered to the party it is supporting.”

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 10/01/2024, Ocado Innovation Limited vs AS [et al.] / Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP (Case number UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023)
Example of decision on the meaning of the legal interest condition to intervene in an appeal : “An interest in the result of the action within the meaning of R.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.”