CoA, October 21, 2024, Request For Submission Of New Evidence, UPC_CoA_297/2024

Key takeaways

New contradictory statements of the other party do not justify the submission of new evidence at appeal stage

Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) grants the Court of Appeal discretion to disregard new evidence not previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. In exercising this discretion, the Court considers: (a) whether the Party could have reasonably presented the evidence already in first instance, (b) the relevance of the new evidence to the appeal decision, and (c) the other party's position on the matter. New statements of the opponent in parallel U.S. proceedings interpreting a term of a similar patent claim to the patent in suit in a manner contradictory to their interpretation in the proceedings at hand, do not justify the admittance of further evidence in appeal proceedings. The Court underscored a crucial principle: claim interpretation is a legal matter solely within the Court's purview, not to be influenced by potentially contradictory statements made in other jurisdictions.

Division

Court of Appeal Luxembourg

UPC Number

UPC_CoA_297/2024, APL_32012/2024, App_55674/2024

Parties

Appellants (Defendants in the proceedings on the merits): SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH

Opponent (Plaintiff in the proceedings on the merits): Dyson Technology Limited

Patent(s)

EP 2 043 492

Body of Legislation / Rules

R. 222.2 RoP