1. Key takeaways
Order to jointly hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA for reasons of efficiency
Pursuant to Art. 33(3) UPCA, the LD can exercise its discretion when deciding to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) or to refer the counterclaim for revocation for decision to the central division and suspend or proceed with the action for infringement (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA). Such a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA can make sense in respect to reasons of efficency. Another advantage is that the joint hearing allows a decision to be made on both the question of infringement and validity on the basis of a uniform interpretation by the same panel of judges. Hearing both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation is especially justified if the complexity of the technology at issue is moderate and the number of validity attacks manageable.
Decision on procedure pursuant to Article 33(3) UPCA can be made before the conclusion of the written procedure
The court may decide on the procedure pursuant to Article 33(3) UPCA before the conclusion of the written procedure in accordance with R. 37.2 RoP if it takes into account the parties' submissions and grants them the right to be heard.
The court indicated this early decision to be justified and necessary due to the current situation at the court. Some judges are currently only employed on a part-time or case-by-case basis. In addition, the panel stated that it appears appropriate for reasons of procedural economy to obtain the assignment of the technically qualified judge at an early stage in order to be able to ensure that the schedule of the technically qualified judge allows him/her to participate in the proceeding.
2. Division
LD Duesseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_459/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation
5. Parties
Plaintiff: Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant:
- CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co, Ltd
- CUPOWER Europe GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 011 218
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP
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.