1. Key takeaways
The Local Division in Duesseldorf opted for a joint hearing of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, prioritizing procedural efficiency and a unified interpretation of the patent (Article 33(3) UPCA).
Article 33(3) UPCA gives the Court discretion to decide whether to hear infringement and validity cases separately or together. In this case, the Local Division exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to issue an early decision on bifurcation, opting for a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
The Court reasoned that a joint hearing would be more efficient and would ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent in suit. This approach aligns with the principle outlined in Article 52(1) UPCA, which emphasizes the flexible and balanced organization of proceedings.
The Judge-Rapporteur was instructed to request a technically qualified judge to ensure the panel possesses the necessary technical expertise.
This proactive step highlights the Court's commitment to having a panel equipped to understand the technical complexities of the case.
2. Division
Local Division Duesseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant (Patentee): Ona Patents SL
Defendants (Alleged Infringers): Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 263 098
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 37.2 ROP, Art. 33(3) UPCA, Art. 52(1) UPCA
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.
