1. Key takeaways
Procedural order on how to proceed with the action for infringement and the counterclaim for revocation according to Rule 37 RoP
With this decision the LD Düsseldorf applied Rule 37.2 RoP and determined prior to the closure of the written procedure to proceed with both the action for infringement and with the counterclaim for revocation and to request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3) a technically qualified judge with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned according to Art. 33 (3). Rule 37.2 RoP is an exception to Rule 37.1 RoP stating that as soon as practicable after the closure of the written procedure the panel shall decide by way of order how to proceed with respect to the application of Article 33 (3) of the UPCA. The main argument to apply the exception was procedural economic reasons.
2. Division
Düsseldorf Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_ 7/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Action for infringement and counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff)
Bette GmbH & Co. KG (Defendant)
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 375 337 B1
7. Body of legislation / Rules
- Rule 37.2 RoP
- Art. 33 (3) UPCA
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.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.