In a decision issued by the Munich Local Division of the UPC, judge-rapporteur Voß dismissed a preliminary objection filed on the allegation that the legal foundation of the UPCA is incompatible with European Union primary law. In the case in question, the plaintiff, Dolby, is asserting claims against Roku for alleged infringing acts predating the ratification of the UPCA. As an objection to these claims, the defendants argued that the UPC lacks jurisdiction to rule on the dispute as the Court has allegedly taken the place of the national courts outside the judicial framework of the EU.
As part of their objection, the defendants relied inter aliaon a preliminary opinion issued by the CJEU from 2011, which concluded that the draft Agreement of the UPC was not compatible with the provisions of EU law. The defendants argued that the changes made to the current UPCA since issuance of this opinion did not eliminate any alleged incompatibility.
Despite the considerable arguments submitted by Roku, the Court rejected the preliminary objection as inadmissible, as none of the points put forward by the defendants were said to constitute a valid ground under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure for raising a preliminary objection. An objection based on the alleged illegality of the UPCA under Union law was deemed irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction. Further, JR Voß stated that the fact that the alleged infringement predates the UPC's entry into force is also irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction, which follows the reasoning previously reached by the Munich Local Division (see our previous comments here).
This decision serves to demonstrate the strictly exhaustive available grounds on which litigants may file a preliminary objection, and further clarifies the scope of the UPC's jurisdiction to rule on acts of infringement predating its inception.
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.
