Overview · Filed: Dec 29, 2023
UPC_CoA_486/2023
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 9
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 333 | review of case management decision by panel | Binding | the admissible legal remedy against such decisions and orders is an application for review by the panel in accordance with R.333.1 RoP |
| 220 | leave to appeal case management decisions | Binding | An appeal against the orders issued on the basis of this application is admissible under the requirements of R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP. |
| 220 | discretionary review / leave to appeal | Binding | An appeal against the orders issued on the basis of this application is admissible under the requirements of R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP. |
| 333 | time limit for review application | Binding | The fact that the request under R.333.2 RoP provides for a time limit of 15 days from service of the 'order' for filing an Application is of no relevance in this respect. |
| 334 | catalogue of case management powers | Binding | the catalogue of case management powers under R.334 RoP. This includes, under (e), the decision on the order in which the issues are to be decided |
| 20 | notification of decision on preliminary objection timing | Binding | the R.20.2 RoP notification is based on a case management decision within the meaning of R.333.1 RoP |
| 20 | preliminary objection to be decided as soon as practicable | Binding | R.20.1 RoP provides that the Preliminary objection should be decided as soon as practicable. |
| 21 | preliminary objection procedure | Binding | The fact that R.20.2 RoP, in contrast to R.20.1 and 21.1 RoP, does not refer to a decision, but to a 'notification' |
| 102 | general case management wording | Binding | the general wording used in R.102 and R.333 RoP indicates that all case management orders and decisions, notably including those mentioned in R.334 RoP, can be subject of review under R.333 RoP |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APL_59329/2024 Court of Appeal | Jan 14, 2025 | 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). |
| UPC_CoA_2/2026 Court of Appeal | Jan 6, 2026 | jurisdiction | Binding | (UPC_CoA_486/2023, 21 March 2024, par. 16, Netgear v Huawei) |
| UPC_CFI_230/2023 Paris LD | Jan 24, 2024 | jurisdiction — general principle requiring panel review before appeal of case management order | Binding | The UPC Court of Appeal ruled in its order of 11/01/2024 (n°486/2023, §6) that: "As a general principle, unless provided otherwise, a case management decision or order made by the judge-rapporteur" |