ARTICLE
25 March 2026

CoA, March 16, 2026, Order Concerning A Preliminary Objection, UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025

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 Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone.
Germany Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Transport topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

A preliminary objection may also be deferred to the main proceedings by the panel, not only by the judge-rapporteur

The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone. Where the matter has been referred to the panel, the panel may itself decide that the objection should be addressed together with the merits. The Court thus reads R. 20.2 RoP in the broader framework of the UPC's case-management rules rather than as conferring an exclusive power on the judge-rapporteur.

The Court of First Instance has broad case-management discretion to defer a preliminary objection, and that discretion was not exceeded here

The Court of Appeal confirms that the Court of First Instance may either decide a preliminary objection promptly or leave it to the main proceedings, depending on what is procedurally appropriate in the concrete case. Appellate review is correspondingly limited. On the facts, the Paris Local Division was entitled to treat the FRAND-related request as sufficiently linked to the infringement action and the requested injunction that the admissibility issue did not have to be decided upfront, but could properly be dealt with in the main proceedings.

2. Division

Court of Appeal, Panel 1a

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_904/2025
UPC_CoA_905/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Appeal against orders on preliminary objections in patent infringement actions involving FRAND-related claims.

5. Parties

Appellants / defendants in first instance:
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.; Vivo Tech GmbH; Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL.

Respondent / claimant in first instance:
Sun Patent Trust.

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 407 524
EP 3 852 468

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 32 UPCA
R. 19 RoP
R. 20.2 RoP
R. 102.1 RoP
R. 331 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.

[View Source]

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