Case Law
Article 41: Rules of Procedure

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 08/05/2024, Volkswagen AG (Case/ Registry number: UPC_CFI No.513/2023, ORD_12486/2024)
Example of decision on the scope of jurisdiction: “The exceptions are related to the claim for damages for Defendants’ activities in the territory of the United Kingdom or, more broadly and generally, to the entire claims for damages moved against TI.
The decision on these points can be postponed because it requires, first of all, the removal of any doubt as to the validity of the patent, which, moreover, has already been the subject of counterclaims for revocation (CC no. 24451/2024 - CC no. 24753/2024) and also of a separate revocation action brought before the Central Division in Paris (Act no. 19134/2024 - UPC CFI no. 171/2024). Infringement of the patent in suit will also have to be ascertained, being understood that even in this case the determination of the amount of damages awarded to the successful party may be the subject of separate proceedings under rule 125 RoP.
Therefore, there are sound reasons of case management efficiency for this preliminary objection to be dealt with in the main proceeding. The entire UPC system is aimed to efficiency, a purpose that shall always be taken into account in the decisions of the Court, in accordance with Art. 41.3 UPCA, which expressly provides that “the rule of procedure shall guarantee that [...] proceedings are organised in the most efficient manner”.”