1. Key takeaways
The position of the party attacking the patent shall be protected to the same extent as that of the party defending the patent.
If the mandatory coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings before the UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way by extending the time limits for filing the statement of defence and the counterclaim for revocation, this should be granted in line with order no. ORD_1495/2025.
The power of case management includes the right to encourage the parties to cooperate with each other during the proceedings (see Rule 332(a) and 9 (1) RoP). The parties can be invited to submit a – possibly joint – request for the alignment of future procedural deadlines.
If different deadlines result from different service dates, the procedural deadlines to all defendants on the one hand and to the applicant on the other can be harmonised by ensuring fairness and justice and taking into account the legitimate interests of all parties (Preamble, point 5 RoP).
2. Division
LD Milan
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_472/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action
5. Parties
Claimant:
Dainese S.p.A.
Defendants:
Alpinestars S.p.A.
Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
Omnia Retail S.r.l.
Horizon Moto 95 – Maxxess Cergy
Zund.Stoff Augsburg/Ulrich Herpich E.K.
Motocard Bike S.l.
6. Patent(s)
EP 4 072 364
EP 3 498 117
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 332, Rule 9 (1) (4) 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.
