UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Nov 14, 2024

UPC_CFI_698/2024

METHOD OF TREATING PROLIFERATIVE DISORDERS AND OTHER PATHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS MEDIATED BY BCR-ABL, C-KIT, DDR1, DDR2 OR PDGF-R KINASE ACTIVITY

Procedural & sub-applicationsDocument Access (RoP262)Milan CDGenericCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Rules of Procedure · 4

TargetLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
262.1(b)public access to case documents — scope limited to documents filed at time of applicationBindingAn application under Rule 262.1 b) has to be read only in regard to the documents filed in the main proceedings at the date the application was made
4.1digital signature — non-digitally signed submission admissible if unequivocally referable to lawyerBindingRule 4.1 RoP does not preclude the lodging by a legal representative of a non-digitally signed submission when this document or a written pleading also in the light of its electronic filing is unequivocally referable to the lawyer who lodged it.
264hearing — party to be heard; choice between personal attendance, written submissions or videoconferencingBindingWhenever a party is to be heard under Rule 264 RoP, the choice of replacing the personal attendance by the filing of written submissions or by videoconferencing provided for in the same rule should not be exercised as to result detrimental to the parties' power to make their respective arguments.
150costs — cost decision only follows merit decisionBindingA decision about legal costs (rule 150 RoP) only follows a decision 'on the merit', being latter a decision rendered at the outcome of a judicial proceeding involving substantive rights

UPC (CFI) · 1

TargetLegal pointStrengthExcerpt
UPC_CFI_380costs — cost decision only follows decision on merit involving substantive rightsBindingA decision about legal costs (rule 150 RoP) only follows a decision 'on the merit', being latter a decision rendered at the outcome of a judicial proceeding involving substantive rights (see Milan CD UPC_CFI 380
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.