European Union: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Cyprus reformed its civil procedure on 1 September 2023 with new rules modelled on the English system, introducing active case management and an overriding objective to handle cases justly and proportionately. How do these reforms change the way civil claims progress through the Cyprus courts, from pre-action protocols through to trial and enforcement?

A Cyprus Court of Appeal judgment provides crucial guidance on recognizing English court judgments in Cyprus, examining third-party litigation funding arrangements, and clarifying when recognition may be refused on public policy grounds. The decision addresses the narrow grounds for challenging foreign judgment recognition and confirms that properly structured litigation funding does not violate Cyprus public policy.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court examines the stringent requirements for granting suspensive effect under Article 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223.2 RoP in patent litigation. This decision clarifies when an applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo during an appeal can exceptionally outweigh the respondent's interests in cost proceedings related to revocation actions.

The Court of Appeal examines whether an application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn when no final decision has been issued and the opposing party provides consent, addressing the procedural requirements under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure applied mutatis mutandis.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal examines procedural rules governing appeals in patent litigation between Lionra Technologies Ltd. and Cisco Systems. This case involves the interpretation and application of specific Rules of Procedure in the context of an appeal from a first instance decision concerning European Patent EP 2 201 740.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal examines multiple appeals stemming from infringement and revocation proceedings between Fujifilm Corporation and Kodak entities concerning European Patent EP 3 476 616. The case involves complex jurisdictional questions under the UPC Agreement and raises fundamental issues about patent validity and enforcement across Germany and the United Kingdom.

The Dutch Supreme Court has issued a decisive ruling on the contentious Box 3 tax assessments, determining the fate of taxpayers who failed to timely object to their assessments between 2017 and 2020. This judgment resolves a critical question left open by the landmark Christmas judgment of 2021, establishing whether non-objecting taxpayers can still claim relief. The decision carries significant implications for thousands of Dutch taxpayers who may have missed objection deadlines during this period.

In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information.

The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers. Appellant appealed, raising five grounds: disproportionality, lack of evidentiary necessity for process features, fishing expedition / pre-emptive remedies, self-incrimination, and insufficient confidentiality measures.