1. Key takeaways
Nature of "notice" pursuant to R. 20.2 RoP to be determined.
It remains to be determined whether this "notice" is a decision / order.
Competence concerning application to review pursuant to R. 333.1 RoP to be determined.
It remains to be determined whether the judge rapporteur or the panel is competent.
Exceptionally, a request for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP may be admissible even where the decision / order to be reviewed was taken by the judge rapporteur and not by the panel.
Even though the application to review pursuant to R. 333.1 RoP was rejected by the judge rapporteur and not by the panel, the request for discretionary review thereof pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP was admitted and allowed the applicant to appeal.
2. Division
Court of Appeal Luxembourg
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_486/2023
App_595643/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP of an order by the judge rapporteur whereby he refused an application pursuant to R. 333.1 RoP to have his decision pursuant to R. 20.2 RoP reviewed by the panel
5. Parties
Applicants / Defendants in the Main Proceedings before the Court of First Instance:
Netgear Inc.
Netgear Germany GmbH
Netgear International Limited
Respondent / Claimant in the Main Proceedings before the Court of First Instance:
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 611 989
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 19 RoP
Rule 20 RoP
Rule 220.3 RoP
Rule 333.1 RoP
To view the full article click here
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.
