UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 454/2024

Aug 1, 2024·EP2671173: METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING

SEP (unclear)
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Mikko Kalervo Väänänen
Respondents
Reps: Prof. Tilmann Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Nadine Westermeyer (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
English
Decisions
  • 2024-08-21
    DismissedRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    Court of Appeal held that Microsoft's appeal against an order denying its R.361 RoP request (manifestly inadmissible application) was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by a single judge-rapporteur rather than a panel. An appeal from a case management order is only admissible if the order was issued by a panel. The request for discretionary review was dismissed.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of appeal against case management order (R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP)Requirement that case management order be issued by panelR.361 RoP manifestly bound to fail application
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-08-21Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2024-08-21Not public
Outcome of the Order2024-08-21Not public
final order2024-08-21Public
2nd Response to Request for Discretionary Review 20th Oct2024-08-21Not public
1st Response to Discretionary Review 19th Oct2024-08-21Not public
Receipt2024-08-20Not public
Receipt2024-08-20Not public
20th Aug Response to Microsoft Request for Discretionary Review2024-08-20Not public
19th August Response to Microsoft Request for Discretionary Review2024-08-20Not public
Receipt2024-08-20Not public
oder consulting other party2024-08-20Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-08-20Not public
Request_Discretionary_Review_Response_of_Microsoft2024-08-20Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-08-02Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-08-02Not public
Payment Confirmation2024-08-01Not public
Application2024-08-01Not public