UPC CoA 177/2024
15. Apr. 2024
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Progress Maschinen & Automation AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Markus Gangl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
- Florian Robl-Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte
Beklagte- AWM s.r.l.Unternehmen
- SCHNELL S.p.A.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Cristina Schiavone-Manzella & Associati
- Federico Manzella-Manzella & Associati
- Paolo Creta-Studio Legale Costa-Creta
- Elisa Viotto-Studio Legale Costa-Creta
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 2. Mai 2024
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 23. Juli 2024
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| Richter Klaus Grabinski | Gesperrt |
| Richter Peter Blok | Gesperrt |
| Richter Emanuela Germano | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (9 Verfahren)·AWM s.r.l. (9 Verfahren)
- 2024-07-23Appeal RoP220.1Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_177/2024) on the disclosure of evidence obtained in preservation/inspection proceedings under Art. 60 UPCA. The Court held that an application for preservation of evidence necessarily implies a right to have the outcome disclosed to the applicant, but this right is not unconditional — the opposing party must be heard before disclosure, especially where the evidence may contain confidential information. The Court remanded the matter to ensure AWM and Schnell were given the opportunity to make a confidentiality request before Progress received the expert report.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Preservation of evidence (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 et seq. RoP)
- Disclosure of evidence to applicant
- Confidentiality in evidence proceedings
- Right to adversarial proceedings
- 2024-05-02
Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal issued an order on the application for suspensive effect filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, concerning an order by the Milan Local Division that had granted preservation of evidence and inspection orders in favour of AWM and SCHNELL. The court examined whether suspensive effect was warranted to prevent the appeal from being rendered largely ineffective.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Suspensive effect of appeal (R. 220 RoP)
- Preservation of evidence and inspection orders
- Access to expert reports by parties
- Effectiveness of appeal pending execution
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgement-of-lodging | 2024-07-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-07-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| DecisionOutcome | 2024-07-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final order | 2024-07-23 | Öffentlich |
| Reference | 2024-06-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Reference | 2024-06-20 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2024-05-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| interimProcedureClosure | 2024-05-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| summons | 2024-05-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order oral hearing | 2024-05-24 | Öffentlich |