Overview · Filed: —
APL_59329/2024
Intelligent interrupt distributor
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)—
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 14
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 158 | security for costs | Binding | on composition of the Court in orders for security for cost of a party (R. 158 RoP) |
| 333 | security for costs | Binding | An order on security for costs pursuant to R. 158 RoP is a case management order. Such orders can be reviewed by the panel on its own motion or at the request of a party (R. 333 RoP). |
| 355 | security for costs | Binding | in case of failure to provide security within the stated period of time, a decision by default may be given, in accordance with R. 355 RoP. |
| 220.4 | discretionary review | Binding | the standing judge issued an order pursuant to R. 220.4 RoP. |
| 220.3 | discretionary review | Binding | It is possible to make a request for discretionary review to the Court of Appeal under R. 220.3 RoP in the event leave to appeal of an order of a panel is refused |
| 1.2 | court composition | Binding | R. 1.2(a) RoP states that where the Rules provide for the Court to perform any act other than an act exclusively reserved (insofar as relevant here) for a panel of the Court, that act may be performed by the presiding judge or the judge-rapporteur |
| 331 | court composition | Binding | From the system as laid down in the Rules of Procedure, in particular R. 331 RoP in conjunction with R. 102 and R. 333 RoP |
| 102 | court composition | Binding | in particular R. 331 RoP in conjunction with R. 102 and R. 333 RoP, on the basis of which decisions and orders by the judge-rapporteur under the mandate of the panel can always be reviewed |
| 158 | security for costs | Binding | with reference to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, Total Semiconductor to provide security in an amount of € 600.000 |
| 355 | security for costs | Binding | a decision by default may be given, in accordance with R.355 RoP. Leave to appeal was refused. |
| 220.4 | discretionary review | Binding | the standing judge issued an order pursuant to R.220.4 RoP. |
| 158.3 | security for costs | Binding | it was stated that R.158.3, 220.2 RoP do not apply because the leave to appeal is refused |
| 1.2 | court composition | Binding | R.1.2 RoP does not grant the judge-rapporteur general competence, but only clarifies in general terms that different acts may also be performed by different judges. |
| 345.4 | court composition | Background | R.345.4 RoP does not seem to be applicable in relation to an order for security for costs either. |
EPC article · 2
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 69 | security for costs | Binding | the Mannheim Local Division ordered, with reference to Art. 69 (4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, Total to provide security in an amount of € 600.000 |
| 69 | security for costs | Binding | the Mannheim Local Division ordered, with reference to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, Total Semiconductor to provide security in an amount of € 600.000 |
UPC Court of Appeal · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_486/2023 | discretionary review | Binding | It is possible to make a request for discretionary review to the Court of Appeal under R. 220.3 RoP in the event leave to appeal of an order of a panel is refused (see CoA, order on 21 March 2024, UPC_CoA 486/2023, App_595643/2023, Netgear vs Huawei). |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.