ARTICLE
10 September 2024

CoA, September 5, 2024, Order On Connection Joinder Of Proceedings, UPC_CoA_106/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
A connection joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA.
Germany Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

1. Key takeaways

A connection joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA.

A joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA. Interpreting R. 340 RoP in a way that permits such referrals would conflict with the competence regime of the UPCA and would therefore be contrary to Art. 41(1) UPCA and R. 1.1 RoP, which stipulate that the provisions of the UPCA take precedence over the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, R. 340 RoP expressly provides that Art. 33 UPCA must be respected.

Art. 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an action for infringement from a local division to the central division without the agreement of the parties involved.

Art. 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an action for infringement from a local division to the central division without the agreement of the parties involved. Under Art. 33(5) UPCA, a local division may proceed in accordance with Art. 33(3) UPCA when an action for infringement is brought before it while a revocation action between the same parties relating to the same patent is pending before the central division. Art. 33(3)(c) UPCA allows the referral of an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation to the central division with the agreement of the parties. Art. 33(5) in conjunction with Art. 33(3) UPCA does not allow a referral of an infringement action without the agreement of the parties.

2. Division

Luxembourg Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_106/2024

ORD_42780/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against dismissal of Preliminary Objection/request for connection joinder pursuant to R. 340.1 RoP

5. Parties

APPELLANTS and Defendants in the main proceedings:

ADVANCED BIONICS AG (Stäfa, Switzerland)

ADVANCED BIONICS GMBH (Fellbach-Oeffingen, Germany)

ADVANCED BIONICS SARL (Bron Cedex, France)

RESPONDENT and Claimant in the main proceedings:

MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT M.B.H. (Innsbruck, Austria)

6. Patent(s)

EP 4 074 373

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 340.1 RoP, Art. 33 UPCA

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More