1. Key takeaways
Neither the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law nor the alleged violation of the right to a lawful judge constitutes a valid ground for a preliminary objection.
According to Rule 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection is strictly limited to the following formal procedural grounds: (a) the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, (b) the competence of the division, (c) the language of the Statement of claim. Therefore, the preliminary objection does not extend to reviewing the validity of the UPCA itself or the alleged violation of Art. 47 (2) EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Art. 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The claimant is not required to prove the authority of the UPC representative (Art. 48 UPCA) for the withdrawal of an opt-out, unless the defendant contests it.
For the question of jurisdiction, a plausible allegation of infringement is sufficient under Art. 33 UPCA and R. 19.1(b) RoP.
With regard to the jurisdiction, a conclusive assertion that an act of infringement has taken place and that this cannot be ruled out from the outset is sufficient. Whether an infringement act has actually occurred or threatens to occur is a question of the merits of the action.
2. Division
LD Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_339/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action
5. Parties
Claimant: Sun Patent Trust
Defendants: Roku, Inc.; Roku International B.V.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 200 463
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP, Art. 83 (4) UPCA, Rule 5.7 RoP
2025-03-18-LD Munich UPC_CFI_339-2024_de 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.
