Übersicht · Eingereicht: —
UPC_CoA_404/2023
BerufungenHauptberufungCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.2—
Parteien
Kläger
- Ocado Innovation Limited
Vertreter: Anna Bladh Redzic (Sandart & Partners Advokatbyrå KB); Simon Ayrton (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP); Thomas Oliver (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP); Joel Coles (Powell Gilbert (Europe) LLP)
Beklagte
- Autostore AS
- Autostore Sp. z o.o.
- Autostore System AB
- Autostore S.A.S.
- Autostore System GmbH
- Autostore System AT GmbH
- Autostore System Srl
- Autostore System S.L
Vertreter: Laura Ramsay (Dehns); Annabelle Beacham (Dehns)
Richter
- Rian KaldenPresiding Judge
- Ingeborg SimonssonLegally Qualified Judge / Judge-Rapporteur
- Patricia RombachLegally Qualified Judge
Patente
- —
Ausgang
Abgewiesen
Eingereicht: —
Erste Entscheidung: 11. Dez. 2023
Letzte Entscheidung: 8. Feb. 2024
Sprache: —
Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 refusing two applications to intervene in the appeal by Ocado against the public register access order. Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP applied to intervene, arguing they had parallel pending R. 262 applications before the Central Division that raised the same legal issues. The CoA rejected both applications as inadmissible for lack of legal interest in the result of the appeal: a party applicant whose separate R. 262 application is stayed pending the appeal's outcome does not have a sufficient legal interest under the UPC intervention rules, as the outcome of the appeal would not directly and necessarily affect their own applications.