1. Key takeaways
Rule 263(3) RoP allows for unconditional limitation of claims, covering both the relief sought and the cause of action.
Rule 263(3) RoP applies if a patentee asserts a plurality of
patents and then renounces one of them. Therefore, Rule 265 RoP
concerning the case in which the
Claimant withdraws the action – all its claims – is not
applicable here.
Unlike Rule 265 RoP, Rule 263 RoP does not provide the regulation of costs because the proceedings continue against the Defendant in relation to other claims. However, the limitation requested by Claimant will be considered by the court according to Art. 69 UPCA when issuing the final (cost) decision.
2. Division
Local Division Milan
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_472/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action; Application for leave to change claim or amend case/pleading (RoP263)
5. Parties
Claimant: Dainese S.P.A.
Defendant(s):
Motocard Bike S.l. (Defendant 6 in main proceedings)
Alpinestars S.p.A. (Defendant 1)
Alpinestars Research S.p.A. (Defendant 2)
6. Patent(s)
EP4072364
EP3498117
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 263 RoP
Rule 265 RoP
Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP
Article 69 UPCA
UPC_CFI_472_2024_LD_Milan_2025-04-07 – Dainese Aplinestars
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.
