ARTICLE
27 March 2024

LD The Hague, 15 February 2024, R.9 Order On The Application Of Art. 33(3) UPCA, UPC_CFI_239/2023

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 joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of procedural expediency and avoids the risk of delay...
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

No bifurcation of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (as unanimously requested by the parties)

A joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim seems to be appropriate in particular for reasons of procedural expediency and avoids the risk of delay that might be involved with bifurcating. It is also preferable because it allows both issues – validity and infringement – to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the samepanel composed of the same judges. This is also in conformity with the preference of both parties.

2. Division

Local Division the Hague

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_239/2023

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement Action/Counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Applicant: Plant-e Knowledge B.V.; Plant-e B.V.

Respondent: Arkyne Technologies S.L.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2137782

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 9 RoP; Art. 33 UPCA; Rule 37 RoP

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