ARTICLE
20 May 2025

LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_127/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Discretion to separate proceedings, Rule 303(2) RoP

The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged. In this case, the court identified arguments both for and against seperation. While the proceedings against some defendants were more advanced than against others, the court ultimately decided against separation.

Factors influencing the separation of proceedings

The court considers factors such as whether the claims involve the same attacked embodiment and whether the defendants are alleged to have collaborated in the infringement.

Here, the claims against all defendants concerned the same allegedly attacked embodiment, and the claimant argued that the defendants collaborated in distributing the allegedly attacked products. This interconnectedness led the court to conclude that a joint trial would be more efficient. Joint hearings ensure consistent decisions and avoid the risk of contradictory rulings.

Plaintiff's responsibility for procedural errors

While acknowledging that delays in litigation can be disadvantageous, the court emphasized that parties must bear the consequences of their own procedural errors.

The court found that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the claimant's initial error of suing a non-existent entity. Therefore, the claimant had to accept the consequences of this error, and the delay did not constitute an unfair disadvantage.

2. Division

Local Division Munich

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_127/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement Action

5. Parties

Claimant:

Headwater Research LLC

Defendants:

Motorola Mobility LLC

Motorola International Sales LLC

Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH

Digital River Ireland, Ltd.

Flextronics International Europe B.V.

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 110 072

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More