Case Law
Rule 225: Contents of the Statement of appeal

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 22/05/2024, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated (Case/ Registry number: App_27157/2024, ORD_29608/2024)
Example of order on a request for expedition of the appeal and shortening the deadline to lodge a statement of response: "Texas Instruments has not explained that and why it would have a particular interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interests of NST and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, also taking into account the time period Texas Instruments have taken to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal, see any reason to shorten the time period within which NST is to lodge its Statement of response.
Insofar as the further appeal proceedings are concerned, the request is too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify the shortening of any of the future time periods at this stage of the proceedings.”

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 22/02/2024, Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc / Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Registry number : App_7573/2024 ORD_9612/2024 and ORD_9613/2024)
Example of decision on a request to accelerate the appeal procedure: “In proceedings concerning an appeal against an order granting a request for leave to add claims from a further patent in the main proceedings, a request made by the applicants on the last day of the time limits under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RP to shorten the time limit under R. 9.3(b) RP for filing a statement of defence will be rejected in view of the interests of the appellee and the principles of due process, even if this might mean that in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance the statement of defence has to be filed before a decision has been rendered in the appeal proceedings..”
“The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that Netgear’s request did not take sufficient account of Huawei’s interest in a reasonable period of time to properly prepare its response to the appeal, taking into account the time Netgear itself took to prepare the grounds of appeal. Granting the request to expedite the appeal proceedings would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity that the court must take into account when applying the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal is aware that this could mean that the statement of defence in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance has to be filed before a decision has been rendered in the appeal proceedings, but considers that in the present circumstances - in particular the fact that the time limit of three months for filing the statement of defence in respect of the additional claims was set from the date on which the request for leave to amend the application was granted by the judge-rapporteur – the interests of Huawei and the principles of due process outweigh the interests of Netgear.”