ARTICLE
23 January 2025

LD Munich, January 13, 2025, Revised Order On Auxiliary Requests, UPC_CFI_298/2023

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.
Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds...
Germany Intellectual Property

1 Key takeaways

The number of 55 auxiliary requests can be reasonable

Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds of invalidity raised), the importance of the patent at issue and the interrelationship with other proceedings, both judicial and administrative, the number of auxiliary request is not unreasonable in this case.

It would be absurd to stay proceedings before the UPC with regard to parallel EPO opposition proceedings if an auxiliary request which is the subject of discussion before the EPO could no longer be introduced into the UPC-proceedings.

The principle of fairness (Art. 42 UPCA) requires the possibility for the Claimant to defend itself against all attacks brought forward with the counterclaim.

Reduction of auxiliary request after decision of the Opposition Devision reasonable

The outcome of the proceedings before the EPO is to be reflected and taken into account in the present proceedings. It must be possible for Claimant to adjust his auxiliary requests in the present proceedings according to the decision of the Opposition Division.

However, the number of auxiliary requests to be considered reasonable in number may affect the time limit for replying to the auxiliary requests. It will considered the extent to which the parties have already had the opportunity to respond to the arguments of the other party before the EPO. In view of this, also a shortening of deadlines has to be considered.

2 Division

LD Munich

3 UPC number

UPC_CFI_298/2023

4 Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation

5 Parties

Claimants: 10x Geonomics, Inc., Harvard

Defendants: NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies GmbH, NanoString Netherlands B.V.

6 Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 333 RoP, R. 30.1 (c) RoP

UPC_CFI_298-2023_LD_Munich_January 13_2025 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.

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