Case Law
Article 8:  Composition of the panels of the Court of First Instance

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 29/01/2024, 10x Genomics, Inc./ Curio Bioscience Inc. (Case number UPC_CFI_463/2023, ORD_3015/2024)
Example of decision on the right for the panel to call a technically judge to determine whether the existence of the disputed patent is sufficiently secured to consider issuing a provisional measures order: “In principle, provisional measures can only be ordered if the legal existence of the patent in dispute is sufficiently guaranteed, art. 62(4) EPC in conjunction with R. R. I. R. 211.2 of the Rules of Procedure. It is therefore incumbent on the panel of judges to form a sufficient idea of the existence of the right on the basis of the parties’ arguments and, in particular, to examine whether any objections raised against the validity of the contested patent are such as to create reasonable doubt as to the validity of the contested patent (UPC_CFI_452/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), order of December 11, 2023). Although ex officio recourse to a technically qualified judge is only mentioned in R. 34 of the Rules of Procedure, and thus in the provisions relating to the procedure on the merits, art. 8(5), 2nd sentence EPC confers on the panel of judges, in general and therefore also in urgent proceedings, the right to call in such a judge on its own initiative, after hearing the parties, if it deems it appropriate (also UPC_CFI_2/2023 (LK München), UPC_CFI_214/2023 (LK Helsinki)).”

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.”