1. Key takeaways
It follows from R. 15(2) RoP that it is sufficient that the court fees have been paid for the statement of claim to be deemed to have been lodged.
Neither the English nor the German nor the French version state that the fee "has been received by the court". The wording in all languages clearly state that it is sufficient that the court fees have been paid for the statement of claim to be deemed to have been lodged (per se and not when: R. 15 (2) RoP does not stipulate the date of filing).
The wording of R. 213(1) RoP unambiguously states that the "start" of the proceedings on the merits is sufficient.
Rule 213 (1) RoP states that applicant has to "start" proceedings on the merits. The wording of the rule unambiguously states that the "start" of the proceedings on the merits is sufficient. Starting something in other words means to begin with. Starting the proceedings on the merits means that the statement of claim is filed in the CMS and the court fees have been paid. However, nothing in R. 213 (1) RoP states or implies that for the start of the proceedings the court fees also need to received by the Court.
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_201/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Order
5. Parties
APPLICANT:
Syngenta Limited
RESPONDENTS:
1) Sumi Agro Limited
2) Sumi Agro Europe Limited
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 152 073
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 15(2), 213(1) RoP
UPC_CFI_201_2024 December-12-2024 Syngenta vs Sumi Agro 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.
