1. Key takeaways
Whenever certain workflows are provided, parties shall use the correct workflows for lodging documents.
If there is a separate workflow for the Application to amend the patent, the party should use this workflow instead of filing the Application in the same submission as the Statement of Defense. This makes the CMS more transparent and more accessible and is in line with the provisions in Rule 4.1 RoP.
Using the wrong workflow may render a submission inadmissible in the future.
Only "for now" the use of the wrong workflow does not render a submission inadmissible.
The RoP must be interpreted with reference to the principles of fairness and proportionality (Preamble No. 2 RoP).
It is not readily apparent to the user that the CMS requires an independent reaction to the Application to amend a patent by opening a separate workflow (cf. Rule 29(a) RoP vs. Rule 4.1 RoP). Such 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.
2. Division
Central Division Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI-484/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Revocation action
5. Parties
Plaintiff: Nokia Technology GmbH
Defendant: Mala Technologies Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 044 709
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 29(a) RoP, Rule 4.1 RoP
8. Referenced orders
ORD_19619/2024 ACT_580198/2023, UPC_CFI_367/2023
ORD_25657/2024 ACT_578871/2023, UPC_CFI_360/2023
ORD_576853/2023, UPC_CFI_15/2023
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.