Procedural points from the UPC
Some bitesized procedural Unified Patent Court decisions that have caught my eye over the last month:
1?? Google v Ona, Court of Appeal, 18 Sep 2024
?? #Google succeeded in changing the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court considered the company language relevant.
20. [...] there is a clear disadvantage for Google if the language of the proceedings is different from its company language, as it needs translations to properly prepare its Statements and hearing(s).
2?? Krahbichler & SWAT Medical in Meril v Edwards, Paris Central Division, 23 Sep 2024
?? The Court refused a request to access documents while revocation proceedings were ongoing, applying the guidance from Ocado v Autostore (Court of Appeal, 10 Apr 2024). Both Meril and Edwards opposed the request.
17. In the case at hand, the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighs the interest in information asserted by the applicant, so that the parties can present their arguments and evidence and so that the court can conduct the proceedings impartially and independently [...].
领英推荐
3?? Menarini in EOFlow v Insulet, Milan Central Division, 1 Oct 2024
?? Insulet filed parallel applications for provisional measures against EOFlow (an alleged manufacturer) and Menarini (an alleged distributor, having a contractual relationship with EOFlow). One application was filed in the Milan Central Division and the other in the Milan Local Division. Menarini requested to intervene in the proceedings against EOFlow, on the basis that the outcome of those proceedings would affect the contractual relationship. The request was supported by EOFlow and opposed by Insulet. The Milan Division rejected the intervention, addressing factors including the timing of Menarini's request and the importance of fast proceedings for provisional measures.
[...] interim injunction proceedings must not be overloaded, for example with interventions that could slow down the proceedings and, above all, can be made in proceedings on the merits [...] (page 4, ?5).
4?? Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 4 Oct 2024
?? Meril submitted a cease-and-desist undertaking to Edwards, partway through UPC proceedings - raising the question of which party should bear costs. The Court held that this depended on which party was 'successful', which in turn depended on how the case had developed to date.
14. [...] The undertaking itself implies that the claimant’s requests have been fulfilled. This means that, as a general rule, the claimant must be considered the successful party.
15. An exception to the general rule of Art. 69(1) UPCA may apply if a claimant initiates proceedings without first sending a warning letter and the defendant submits a cease-and-desist undertaking immediately at the beginning of the proceedings.
#UPC #patentlitigation #patents
Any views expressed apply solely to the parts of the decision(s) under discussion. Such views are those of the author(s) at the time of writing, and do not necessarily represent their current views or the views of their employer. This article provides a summary of the subject-matter and should not be acted on without first seeking legal advice.