UPC CoA 520/2024

At the UPC: Scandit AG (15 cases)·Hand Held Products, Inc. (15 cases)

• 2025-04-18
  Public

  Summary: Order from the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_520/2024) on Scandit's application for 20% reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.11 RoP following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' appeal against a preliminary injunction. The CoA had previously granted a PI at first instance against Scandit for indirect infringement of EP 3 866 051; Hand Held Products later withdrew its application for provisional measures and the appeal proceedings were declared closed. The Court decided on whether the withdrawal before closure of oral proceedings qualified for fee reimbursement.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.11 RoP)
  • Withdrawal of provisional measures application
  • Closure of appeal proceedings
• 2025-03-31
  Application RoP 265Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal allowed Hand Held Products to withdraw its application for provisional measures (pending appeal) after Scandit consented, terminated the appeal proceedings accordingly, and ordered each party to bear its own costs as no costs request was made by either side.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Withdrawal of provisional measures application (R.265.1 RoP)
  • Consent of opposing party
  • Costs on withdrawal
• 2024-12-11
  Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal denied Hand Held Products Inc.'s application for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation (German to English) of the oral hearing in the appeal proceedings against Scandit AG, because the application was filed late (less than one month before the hearing) and the conditions of R. 109.1 RoP were not met; the party was free to arrange interpretation at its own cost under R. 109.4 RoP.

  Show the legal issues (2)

  • Simultaneous interpretation at oral hearing under R. 109.1 and R. 109.4 RoP
  • Deadline for interpretation application (one month before hearing)
• 2024-11-01
  Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal (Judge-Rapporteur) refused Scandit's request for leave to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to appeal pursuant to R. 36 RoP. The Court held that no further written exchange is provided for under the RoP unless a cross-appeal has been filed, and that the alleged new matter raised in the response to appeal did not justify an exception.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Leave to file reply in appeal (R. 36 RoP)
  • Written procedure in appeal
  • No further exchange of submissions without cross-appeal