1. Key takeaways
Separation of proceedings is at the Court's discretion (Rule 303(2) RoP).
The Court may separate proceedings involving multiple defendants, but such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering procedural efficiency and fairness to all parties.
Joint proceedings are favored for procedural economy, especially when claims involve the same infringing embodiment.
In this case, hearing the claims against all defendants together promotes efficiency as they relate to the same allegedly infringing product.
Additionally, the plaintiff's allegation of the fifth defendant's role as a logistics provider for others suggests potential collaborative infringement, making a joint trial more practical.
While delays caused by joint proceedings are acknowledged, they are not considered “unreasonable disadvantages” if attributable to the plaintiff's actions.
The Court recognizes that the plaintiff might experience delays due to the joint proceedings.
However, the blame for these delays is placed on the plaintiff's initial misidentification of the fifth defendant. The Court argues that a separate complaint against the correctly identified party from the outset could have prevented this delay.
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_149/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action
5. Parties
Claimant: Headwater Research LLC
Defendant(s): Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 110 069
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 303(2) 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.
