Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

 Case Law
Rule 19: Preliminary objection

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 03/09/2024, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v. DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. (Case/ Registry number: APL_21943/2024, ORD_42716/2024)
Example of decision on preliminary objections: "4) The list of preliminary objections of R. 19.1 RoP must be regarded as exhaustive. The application of R. 19 to 21 RoP therefore cannot be extended to other defences, such as abusive procedural conduct and manifest lack of foundation."

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 10/05/2024, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V./ Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Registry number: App_3514/2024 ORD_7903/2024)
Example of decision on the violation of a standstill clause as a possible ground of lack of jurisdiction: “14. This objection is not well grounded. Indeed, the rights enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ‘ECHR’ and Articles 47 and 48 of the ‘CFREU’ are not absolute and may be restricted in specific circumstances. A legitimate restriction must have a legitimate purpose, be proportionate and ensure that the very essence of the right is not undermined (see, CJEU 18 March 2010, C-317/08, Alassini). These same principles, developed with reference to the limitations imposed by public authorities, can also be applied to the limitations arising from contractual agreements.”
“17. Based on this definition, lack of jurisdiction can occur when a different court or a different body (as an arbitration board) which is part of a different judicial system have the power to address the dispute (‘relative’ lack of jurisdiction) or when the situation brought to courts is not even abstractly configurable as a protectable right, pertaining to the administrative or the legislative power (‘absolute’ lack of jurisdiction)."
18. None of these situations is present in the situation at hand: nor the first, as no other court or judicial body is indicated as the one to have jurisdiction on the proceedings; nor the second, as the objection raised by the defendant concerns the inexistence of the concrete conditions for the Court to address the claim – due to the alleged non-compliance of the obligation of the 90 days prior notice – and not the abstract power of the Court to decide the case.”

Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division– Seat, Order dated 30/04/2024, Panasonic Holdings Corporation / Xiaomi, Odiporo, Shamrock (Registry number: App_14390/2024 ORD_14600/2024)
Example of decision on the possibility for the court to order the production of license agreements: “When deciding whether the court can order the production of license agreements and other confidential information, the interests of the third party, the respective license agreement partner, who is generally not yet directly involved in the legal dispute, must also be taken into account.”
“Another argument against a direct court order and direct request to the contractual partner is that the latter is generally not involved in the proceedings and its involvement would often require time-consuming service abroad, whereas it is easily accessible to the party due to the contractual relationship.”
“Before a production order is issued that also affects the interests of the third party, the party must therefore seek consent to the production itself.”
“Rather, the contracting party must be specifically informed about the pending proceedings, the established secrecy protection regime and the specific secrecy protection applications intended by the party in the proceedings so that it can make an informed decision as to whether to grant its consent under these circumstances.”
“If the contracting party has given its express consent, a court order is no longer required. If, on the other hand, consent is subject to conditions - which may not be fulfilled under procedural law (see above) - or if consent is only implied but not expressly given, or if no response is given within a set period of time, although the absence of a response is addressed in the party’s request as assumed consent, an Order may be considered depending on the circumstances of the case. If the third party refuses consent without justification or is unable to provide sufficiently comprehensible reasons as to why it does not consent, a production order may be issued. In this respect, the party’s obligation derived from EU antitrust law to behave transparently when negotiating a FRAND licence and when enforcing the patent rights from an SEP outweighs the conflicting clause and its application by the third party.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 20/02/2024, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH / Tandem Diabetes Care Inc and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V (Case number UPC_CFI_454/2023, ORD_9060/2024)
Example of decision on the discretionary powers of the judge-rapporteur to modify the time limit for submitting a statement of defense: “20. With particular regard to the time limit for submitting a statement of defence, it may be noted that Rule 19 (6) ‘RoP’, applicable to the revocation actions mutatis mutandis due to Rule 48 ‘RoP’, states that ‘The period for lodging the Statement of defence [Rule 23] shall not be affected by the lodging of a Preliminary objection, unless the judge-rapporteur decides otherwise’.
21. This provision expresses the general principle the time periods set out by Rules of Procedures for the actions that the parties have to take in the written procedure are indifferent to the lodging of a preliminary objection.
22. According to Rule 19 (6) ‘RoP’, the judge-rapporteur is allowed to make an exception to this principle, but the relative decision implies the use of the discretionary powers of the Court and, therefore, must comply with the mentioned requirements for a correct use of these powers.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 10/08/2023, Meril GmBH v. Edwards LifeSciences Corporation u.a. (Case number UPC _CFI_15/2023, ORD_557466/2023)
Example of decision allowing a deadline extension: “However, contrary to what applicant 1) believes, preventing such a deviation is not necessary per se. On the one hand, an extension of the objection period does not necessarily mean an extension of the period for filing a complaint. As Rule 19.6 shows, the course of the time limit for filing a complaint is not even influenced by the filing of an objection, unless the rapporteur decides otherwise. On the other hand, the objection only concerns the questions regarding the jurisdiction of the court, the use of the exception under Rule 5 Constitutional Code, the jurisdiction of the chamber and the language of the proceedings. These issues can per se be answered quickly and in different ways for different defendants. Furthermore, it must also be recognized that the other party has a legal interest in obtaining certainty about these questions, including with regard to individual defendants, as soon as possible.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 01/08/2023, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd (Case number UPC_CFI_15/2023, App_557291/2023)
Example of decision on a deadline extension to align deadlines between the two parties: “On the one hand, an extension of the time limit for filing an opposition does not necessarily entail an extension of the time limit for filing a defence. This is because, as Rule 19.6 shows, the time limit for filing a defence is not even affected by the filing of an opposition, unless the judge-rapporteur decides otherwise.”

Court of First Instance - Helsinki (FI) Local Division, Order dated 17/07/2023, AIM Sport Vision AG v Supponor Oy (Case number UPC_CFI_214/2023, ORD_551054/2023)
Example of decision on conditions for a preliminary injunction: “Based on Rule 209.1 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, the Court invites the Defendants to lodge, should they so envisage, an Objection to the Application for the preliminary injunction included in the Statement of Claim. The Objection shall (i) contain the reasons why the Application shall fail and (ii) the facts and evidence relied on, in particular any challenge to the facts and evidence relied on by the applicant.”
“Should the Defendants file a Preliminary objection according to the rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the Statement of claim in the main proceedings and lodge the same objections concerning the preliminary objection, these objections shall be lodged the same time with the Objection to the Application for the preliminary injunction.”