1. Key takeaways
Joint request for stay of proceedings removes court discretion (Rule 295(d) RoP, Art. 43, 76(1) UPCA)
When all parties jointly request a stay, the court must grant it, regardless of the permissive wording in the rule. This upholds party autonomy in determining the subject matter and conduct of their case.
Partial stays are permitted for specific patents (Rule 295(d) RoP)
A stay can be limited to certain patents in multi-patent disputes if so requested by all parties. The court may continue proceedings for other patents where parties have an interest in timely resolution.
Stay justified by ongoing EPO proceedings (Rule 295(d) RoP)
The stay is appropriate when a patent is subject to pending EPO opposition or amendment proceedings.
This prevents unnecessary litigation on a patent whose final form is not yet determined.
2. Division
Milan Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_181/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant: Dainese S.p.A.
Defendants: Alpinestars S.p.A. (Defendant 1), Alpinestars Research
S.p.A. (Defendant 2), Motorcard Bike S.l. (Defendant 3) plus other
defendants against whom the action was withdrawn
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 498 117,
EP 4 072 364
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 295(d) RoP
Article 43 UPCA
Article 76(1) UPCA
Preamble 2 RoP
To view the full article please clickhere.
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.
