UPC_APP_22897/2024

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRANSACTIONS

OtherPreliminary ObjectionMunich LDPreliminary objection—

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
19	preliminary objection scope; opt-out withdrawal	Binding	Rule 19.1 (a) RoP does not mean that the Defendant of an infringement action may raise any objection in the context of an application to opt out and the withdrawal of an opt-out
5	withdrawal of opt-out by UPC representative	Binding	where a UPC representative is acting in accordance with Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP, a written mandate, a power of attorney or any other power or representation is not a necessary condition for the effectiveness of the withdrawal of an opt-out
5	formal requirements for opt-out withdrawal	Binding	The formal requirements for the withdrawal of the opt-out pursuant to Rule 5.7 RoP in conjunction with Rule 5.3 RoP have been met.
5	conditions barring opt-out withdrawal	Binding	the withdrawal is entered in the register and the requirements of Rule 5.8 RoP are not met.
285	challenge to representative's power of representation	Binding	Its Order of 18 September 2024, which was issued in parallel infringement proceedings, does address the principles of statement, substantiation and proof in the context of Rule 285.1 RoP if the power of representation is challenged.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
48	representation before UPC	Binding	Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RoP, a written mandate … is not a necessary condition for the effectiveness of the withdrawal of an opt-out

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_265/2024	principles for challenging power of representation under R.285.1 RoP	Persuasive	Its Order of 18 September 2024, which was issued in parallel infringement proceedings, does address the principles of statement, substantiation and proof in the context of Rule 285.1 RoP

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.