Overview · Filed: May 24, 2024
UPC_CoA_264/2024
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| RoP_rule 361 | preliminary objection; action manifestly lacking foundation in law | Binding | Proceedings under R.361 RoP should not result in a full exchange of arguments and evidence, but – as is clear from the use of the word 'manifestly' – must be reserved for clear-cut cases. |
| RoP_rule 285 | UPC representative not required to submit written mandate unless court orders | Binding | as follows from R.285 RoP, a UPC representative acting for a party before the Unified Patent Court is not required to submit a written mandate or a power of attorney |
| RoP_rule 29 | front-loaded system; further substantiation of arguments permissible in reply | Binding | the claimant, after having made an argument in its Statement of claim, further substantiates this argument in its Statement under R.29(a) or (b) RoP, in reply to a defence |
EPC article · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 48 UPCA | representation by registered UPC representative | Binding | The withdrawal of an opt-out may be lodged either (i) by a registered UPC representative according to Art. 48 UPCA, or (ii) by any other person authorized with a mandate. |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.