Mattia Dalla Costa on LinkedIn: 22. UPC Pills – The public access to case document (2024)

Very useful summary of preliminary injunctions granted by the #upc

2

⏰ Time has come to once again review the UPC cases in the CMS and the decisions & orders available at the UPC website. This time, I have reviewed the 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐏𝐂 – see list below. The two on-line environments are still not very user-friendly in my view and there unfortunately still seems to be a 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐏𝐂 for the public to review. It seems that some decisions published on the UPC website have no corresponding cases visible in the CMS. According to the official case load of the Court published on 21.12.2023, there are:- 13 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬, although only 10 are currently visible in CMS (perhaps the counting of cases is different as with the counter-claims...)- 5 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, only 3 are visible in the CMS (even though the other two seem to already have published decisions on the UPC website)-the sole 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 is visible in the CMS (no more were filed for now), and-the one (and so far considered as inadmissible) 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 in the case 𝘍𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘌𝘊𝘓, 𝘚𝘈𝘚 𝘷. 𝘙𝘌𝘌𝘓 𝘎𝘮𝘣𝘏 (UPC_CFI_274/2023) is n/a in the CMS as it was filed in paper 🔜 Stay tuned for next time, when I will look at the ongoing 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 into the UPC proceedings(𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘥)#unifiedpatentcourt #patentlitigation #intellectualpropertyrights #IPduo

59

4 Comments

☝️As promised, after reviewing the PI cases at the UPC last week, I now made an 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 under R.262.1(b) RoP filed at the UPC (see slide below) – a 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 13 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 are visible in the CMS, with only one case that has been allowed and is under the suspensive effect granted by the Court of Appeal, pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_407/2023).At least one application under R.262.1(b) RoP (App_588681/2023) has been 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 in the above-mentioned case (preliminary order visible on UPC website) and it can be assumed that the others are waiting for this outcome as well, although at least 3 other applications seem to have been already refused in the meantime (these orders are n/a either via CMS or UPC website).In terms of 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐏𝐂 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, it is worth mentioning that the appeal filed by 𝘖𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘰 in the above-mentioned case (APL_584498/2023, UPC_CoA_404/2023) is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐌𝐒 – 19 appeal proceedings in total are listed in the CMS, with none of them being the present appeal case (even though several orders from the Court of Appeal in relation to that case are visible on the UPC website and 𝘖𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘰's 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 in itself (App_584588/2023, UPC_CoA_407/2023) is indeed visible in the CMS). 🤷(𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘥)#unifiedpatentcourt #patentlitigation #intellectualpropertyrights #openjustice #UPCtransparency #IPduo

74

16 Comments

📶 APW wins Gencomp appeal: What are the key takeaways from the recent Court of Appeal ruling on the Electronic Communications Code 2017? 📑 Our latest article explores how this decision redefines parties to code agreements and simplifies termination and renewal agreements. Find out more 👇https://gowlg.co/45JNsSF

2

These updates to the LegalXML Electronic Court Filing specifications are the result of feedback and suggestions from implementers over many years. New implementations should preferably use these versions. Existing implementations should consider how to update to these versions over time.

11

"[1]In paragraph 63 of my endorsem*nt dated November 24, 2023, reported at2023 ONSC 6680, I invited costs submissions as follows:If necessary, the respondents may deliver costs submissions by December 4, 2023. The applicant may then deliver costs submissions by December 18, 2023. Costs submissions shall be no longer than three pages, double-spaced, with normal margins, and with a minimum 12-point font. Every party who delivers costs submissions shall also deliver a Costs Outline. Parties pay also deliver copies of any offers to settle on which they rely. Submissions and related material should be sent to me through my Judicial Assistant at therese.navrotski@ontario.ca and uploaded to Caselines.[7]As 2023 draws to a close, I bestow the Oxymoron of the Year Award upon counsel to the applicant whose “Costs Outline” was a mere 65 pages long. I should give Honourable Mention to counsel for Anu Bhalla whose “Costs Outline” was a svelte 32 pages.[8]Counsel for Neera Rai did not submit a brief costs outline. Rather, they provided a full bill of costs. Yet it was only four pages long. Thank you.[9]I was going to send the applicant’s material back unread in view of his ignoring the process format that I directed. But given that the legal fees incurred by the parties were nearly identical, the most difficult part of the costs process - determining proportionality - was greatly simplified. It is fairly straightforward to find that a party ought reasonably to have anticipated costs being incurred by the parties opposite at the level that his or her own counsel billed. There are nosurprisesthere that mightnegatively impact access to justice."https://lnkd.in/gi-pH28P

19

3 Comments

We have produced a series of Listing Rules destination tables following the publication of the first tranche of draft ‘UK Listing Rules’ (UKLR) text in CP23/31, which contains the FCA’s proposals for Listing Rules reform. The destination tables show where provisions in the current Listing Rules are found in the new draft UKLR sourcebook text (to the extent they are being carried forward), together with an explanation of changes to the text.The destination tables can be found in our updated Listing Rules Resource Notes.

12

the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. in a fact-circ*mstance where the requisite certificate has been applied for from the person or the authority concerned, and the person or authority either refuses to give such certificate, or does not reply to such demand, the party asking for such certificate can apply to the Court for its production under the provisions aforementioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC. the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced.

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG invites you to join the webinar "IP Experts LIVE: Case-law update - What’s new at the #EPO?".It will focus on recent #CaseLaw from the EPO’s #BoardsOfAppeal and expected upcoming developments. Our partners and patent attorneys Tobias Kaufmann and Dr. Patrick Heckeler will address✔the “priority decision” G1/22 and G2/22, and its implications in practice,✔new developments regarding the “adaption of the description” and an expected referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal,✔recent case law on claim interpretation and the question whether the EPO construes claims at all, and✔the “solar cell” referral G1/23 on the test of “availability to the public”.💡Register for this webinar now to stay up to date on these matters, learn about the course EPO case law is taking and how it impacts daily practice in both prosecution and litigation of patents in Europe: https://lnkd.in/e4QgMY_J#IntellectualProperty

10

#UPC news [November 2023]Howe are #confidentialinformation treated by the UPC. First answers were given in November. The Hamburg and Munich Divisions both had to deal with a request regarding the application of RoP Rule 262A – relating to the restriction of access to information considered as confidential.In both cases, the Courts had to rule on the status and number of persons authorized to access information considered as confidential ⚖️❶ The Hamburg Division indicated that the persons authorized to have access to information considered as confidential were, internally, employees with a legitimate interest and, externally, the applicant's representatives - without, however, specifying the number and the identity of such persons [UPC_CFI_54/2023].❷ The Munich division has gone further and determined the number and identity of persons authorized to access information considered as confidential, for both defendants, even though one of them did not suggest any specific persons to access such information ; the Court also specified that “pursuant to Rule 262A.6 RoP. A “natural person from a party” in the sense of said provision is […] not limited to employees of that party”. The Central Division finally stated that the natural persons should be under a strict confidential obligation [UPC_CFI_80/2023]. Merry chrystmas to everyone!#upc #patentlitigation

6