ARTICLE
18 February 2025

Court Of Appeal, February 12, 2025, Order Concerning Representation, UPC_CoA_634/2024, UPC_CoA_635/2024, UPC_CoA_636/2024

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.
All applicants of any application or action under the UPCA and RoP are required to be represented, except if the RoP waive the requirement of representation.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC.

  • All applicants of any application or action under the UPCA and RoP are required to be represented, except if the RoP waive the requirement of representation.
  • An applicant under R. 262.1(b) RoP is not exempted from the requirement of R. 8.1 RoP and is therefore required to be represented (CoA, order of 8 February 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, App_584498/2023, Ocado).
  • The objective of parties being represented by a lawyer is, on the one hand, to prevent private parties from acting on their own behalf before the Courts without using an intermediary and, on the other, to ensure that legal persons are defended by a representative who is sufficiently distant from the legal person which he or she represents (CoA, 11 February 2025, UPC_ CoA_563/2024, APL_53716/2024, Suinno vs Microsoft). Furthermore, it ensures the proper conduct of proceedings. For this purpose, representatives are subject to special duties (R. 284 and R. 290.1 RoP).

Representation is a point of admissibility involving public policy considerations (due process) which the Court may examine at any time, also of its own motion.

When such a matter is raised by the Court, there can be reason, depending on the circumstances, to provide the party with an opportunity to appoint a representative. For example, exceptional allowance to remedy the deficit of the absence of a representative because the Court of Appeal had not yet clarified that legal representation was required in the case of a request under R. 262.1 (b) RoP.

2. Division

Court of Appeal

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_634/2024, APL_58930/2024, ORD_64355/2024

UPC_CoA_635/2024, APL_58934/2024, ORD_7284/2025

UPC_CoA_636/2024, APL_58935/2024, ORD_7289/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Generic Order

5. Parties

Applicant (Counter Claimant and Respondent in the main proceedings before CFI): Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd

Respondents (Applicants before the CFI): 1. n/a, 2. SWAT Medical AB

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 646 825

7. Jurisdictions

Place jurisdictions

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 48 UPCA, R. 8.1 RoP, R. 262.1(b) RoP

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