Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

 Case Law
Rule 4: Lodging of documents

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 02/07/2024, Nokia Technology GmbH (Case/ Registry number: App_29031/2024, ORD_33370/2024)
Example of decision on the use of an uncorrect workflow for a submission to amend a patent: "11. The Rules of Procedure have to be interpreted with reference to the principles of fairness and proportionality (Preamble No. 2 RoP). As stated in ORD_19619/2024 ACT_580198/2023, UPC_CFI_367/2023, it is not readily apparent to the CMS user that the CMS requires an independent reaction to the Application to amend a patent by opening a separate workflow. Ambiguities arising from the CMS, particularly shortly after the launch of the UPC, should not be to the detriment of the parties and should not render a submission inadmissible (see also Ordonnance ORD_25657/2024 ACT_578871/2023 UPC_CFI_360/2023). 12. The Order ORD_576853/2023 UPC_CFI_15/2023 of the Munich Local Division which has been mentioned by Plaintiff states correctly that the parties are obliged under rule 4.1 RoP to use the correct workflow. The Order does not consider the submission to be inadmissible because the wrong workflow was used. The order left open whether in the future submissions filed in the wrong workflow may be inadmissible. This issue doesn’t have to be decided in this order. At least for now the use of the wrong workflow does not render a submission inadmissible. 13. However, the parties are strongly encouraged to use the correct workflows in the future, as this makes the case management system more transparent and more accessible. 14. The arguments underlying the Application to amend were brought to the attention of the court and Plaintiff within the 2-month time limit of R 49 (1), (2) RoP. No disadvantage arose for Plaintiff because Defendant failed to open a separate workflow."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 18/06/2024, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL (Case/ Registry number: App_26610/2024, ORD_27452/2024)
Example of decision providing guidance on the use of the CMS: "1. A Generic procedural application to change the language of the proceedings using the “R. 9 RoP workflow” is admissible according to R. 4.1 RoP, although it is supposed to be submitted in the form of another specific workflow dedicated to this purpose in the Case Management System (CMS)."

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 11/10/2023, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v HELIOS K.K, RIKEN (Case number UPC_CFI_80/2023, ORD_579545/2023)
Example of decision explaining use of the Case Management System: “The parties are in principle under an obligation to use the CMS and the dedicated workflows in the CMS to lodge their submissions (see e.g. Rule 4.1 RoP according to which “parties shall make use of the official forms available online”). It is the sole responsibility of the parties that this is done properly and timely. That said, especially in this early stage of the Court’s operations, where the users still have to get used to the CMS, the Court will try to be helpful where possible in resolving CMS related issues.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 11/10/2023, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v HELIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY (Case number UPC_CFI_75/2023, ORD_579543/2023)
Example of decision explaining use of the Case Management System: “The parties are in principle under an obligation to use the CMS and the dedicated workflows in the CMS to lodge their submissions (see e.g. Rule 4.1 RoP according to which “parties shall make use of the official forms available online”). It is the sole responsibility of the parties that this is done properly and timely. That said, especially in this early stage of the Court’s operations, where the users still have to get used to the CMS, the Court will try to be helpful where possible in resolving CMS related issues.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 24/08/2023, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_1/2023, ORD_560432/2023)
Example of decision on an exceptional situation where it is impossible to file a document electronically because the CMS has ceased to function: “4.41 First of all, based on a plain reading of Rule 4.2, this Rule is drafted in the alternative (“or”) to give a party the choice to – in the exceptional case that it is impossible to lodge a document electronically because the CMS has ceased to function – either file: i) at “the Registry” or ii) at “a sub-registry”.
4.42 Defendant further explained during the oral hearing that it essentially sees the Registry in Luxembourg, apart from serving as the Registry for the Court of Appeal, as acting merely as a “roof entity” for the various sub-registries. This view is, according to the Court, too restricted and does not align with Rule 4.2 RoP and the UPCA as a whole.”
“Where Rule 4.2 refers to “the Registry” (as an alternative for a subregistry), in the context of the UPCA, this means the Registry which is set up (and physically located) at the seat of the Court of Appeal, i.e. in Luxembourg. The Registry in Luxembourg is indeed the Registry of the Court (cf. Article 6 UPCA, “The Court shall comprise … a Registry”). Even though the Registry also serves the Court of Appeal, it is not (only) the Registry of the Court of Appeal. The fact that sub-registries are set-up at the various divisions of the UPC is a matter of practical organisation. This does not imply that the Registry does not have its general functions within the Court of First Instance.”