Key takeaways
Express Grant of Leave to Appeal Required
The Court emphasized that leave to appeal against a procedural order must be explicitly granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) under Article 73 UPCA and Rule 220.2 RoP. The CFI's general statement referencing Rule 220.2 RoP ("subject to appeal under the conditions laid down by the provisions of R. 220.2 RoP") was insufficient. Explicit language such as "leave to appeal is granted" is necessary.
Inadmissibility of the Appeal
The appeal was declared inadmissible due to the absence of explicitly granted leave to appeal by the Court of first instance, consistent with the Court's previous ruling in Abbott v Dexcom (UPC_CoA_5/2024, PR_APL_189/2024). This decision reinforces the importance of procedural precision in appeals before the UPC.
Oral hearing unnecessary
The Court found it unnecessary to hear the parties at an oral hearing, as this issue falls within the scope of the examination referred to in Rule 229 RoP.
Division
CoA
UPC number
CoA_PC 01/2024
Type of proceedings
Appeal against procedural order
Parties
Appellant (Intervener in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): Photon Wave Co, Ltd
Respondent (Claimant in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance): Seoul Viosys Co, Ltd
Patent(s)
EP 3 404 726
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 73 UPCA; R. 220 RoP, R. 229 RoP
UPC_CFI_440_2023_CoA_October_15_2024
Download
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.
