Case Law
Rule 118: Decision on the merits

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 24/07/2024, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v. Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd (Case/ Registry number: ORD_41423/2024, ORD_41423/2024)
Exemple of decision on the interpretation of the term "same parties": "The Court also notes that both Article 33.4 of the UPCA and Rule 118.2 of the RoP are special and autonomous rules specific to internal jurisdiction within the divisions of the UPC. However, in order to interpret the concept of "same parties", it is relevant to reason by analogy with the rules of jurisdiction between the different courts within the EU in matters of lis pendens (Brussels I Regulations [Regulation no. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012, known as the "Brussels I bis Regulation", and Regulation no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, known as the "Brussels I Regulation", or the 1968 Brussels Convention), the aim of which is also to avoid the risk of contradictory decisions. According to the case law in ’The Ship Tatry’, if the parties to the two pending proceedings are not identical in all respects, but only in part, the court second seised is only obliged to decline jurisdiction insofar as the parties to the dispute before it are also parties to the proceedings previously brought, and it is possible to continue between the other parties. (ECJ, 6 December 1994, The Ship Tatry, aff-C-406/92, pt 36)."

Court of Appeal – Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 23/04/2024, Curio Bioscience Inc./ 10x Genomics, Inc. (Registry number : ORD_22211/2024 ORD_22211/2024)
Example of decision on the delivery of an a certified traduction: “In order not to delay the final order on the Application for provisional measures, the Düsseldorf Local Division is making exceptional use of this possibility in the case at hand. The Court of Appeal changed the language of the proceedings to English on 17 April 2024, less than 2 weeks before the date on which the Düsseldorf Local Division is due to issue its order on the Application for provisional measures. This is a complex case in the field of genetic engineering. The entire preparation of the case, the oral hearing and the deliberations were conducted in German. Moreover, work on the final order had already started at the time of the order to change the language of the proceedings. In order to make effective use of this preparatory work and not to delay the proceedings unnecessarily, it is justified and necessary to make exceptional use of the
possibility offered by Rule 14.2 (c) RoP (see also UPC_CoA_101/2024, order issued on 17 April 2024, Rec. 42). This means that the final order may be issued in German, provided that a certified translation is attached.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 19/12/2023, Meril GmbH v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Case number UPC_CFI_249/2023 ORD_577734/2023)
Example of decision on the application by analogy of rules 360 RoP (no need to adjudicate) and 118.5 RoP (obligation to adjudicate on the merits of costs) to the application for provisional measures: “When the court finds that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate, it may, under rule 360 of the Rules of Procedure, "dismiss" the action at any time by means of an order, at the request of a party or of its own motion, after the parties have been heard”
“This provision must be applied by analogy to applications for provisional measures”.
“In the rules of procedure, the obligation to rule on the merits of costs is set out in rule 118.5 of the rules of procedure for proceedings on the merits. There is no such provision for summary proceedings. Rule 118.5 of the Rules of Procedure therefore applies by analogy. A decision on the amount of costs may be followed by a procedure for fixing costs in accordance with rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure.”