1. Key takeaways
The Court may stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO
The request to stay the proceedings shall be decided on the basis of R. 295(a) RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(10) UPCA. In exercising its discretion the court shall take into account the interests of the parties and the relevant circumstances of the case. Furthermore, an effort should be made to avoid contradictory decisions by the UPC and the EPO.
A delay of the court's decision is a circumstance that the court can take into account
Proceedings before the UPC shall be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing at first instance to take place within one year. If the adjournment of the oral hearing would further dealy the proceedings, even though the oral hearing will already only take place over a year after the statement of claim was served, the court may also decide against an adjournment. However, in this case the parties shall inform the court about the decision of the EPO and the court can still take this into account after the oral hearing.
2. Division
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_380/2023, ACT_582093/2023, ORD_65290/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action, with Counetrclaims for revocation
5. Parties
Applicants/Defendants: MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED et. al
Respondent/Claimant: EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 769 722
7.Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 295(a) RoP, Art. 33(10) UPCA
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.
