UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CoA 636/2024

Oct 29, 2024·EP3646825: A SYSTEM COMPRISING A PROSTHETIC VALVE AND A DELIVERY CATHETER

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
  • Andreas Johannes Nikolaus von Falck
Respondents
  • Name withheld (GDPR)
Representatives
  • Erik Krahbichler
Division
Court of Appeal
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Feb 12, 2025
Last decision
May 5, 2025
Decisions
  • 2025-05-05
    Decision By DefaultPublic

    Summary: Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_636/2024, 5 May 2025) setting aside a first-instance order that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The CoA held that public applicants for register access must be represented; an unrepresented person cannot validly lodge a statement of response; a reasoned decision under R. 235.3 RoP is effectively a default decision; and no costs should ordinarily be awarded in R. 262.1(b) proceedings.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Public access to register (R. 262.1(b) RoP)
    • Representation requirement
    • Reasoned decision (R. 235.3 RoP)
    • Decision by default (R. 357 RoP)
    • Costs in access-to-register proceedings
  • 2025-02-12

    Summary: Court of Appeal order in Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. SWAT Medical AB / Respondent 1 concerning representation (R. 8.1 RoP). The appeal arose from a public access application (R. 262.1(b) RoP). The court held: (1) even lawyers and European Patent Attorneys who are themselves parties must be represented before the UPC; (2) representation is a public policy admissibility issue the court may raise at any time of its own motion; (3) Meril Life Sciences' late argument that the access request was inadmissible from the outset due to invalid representation was brought too late under R. 226 and R. 222.2 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Mandatory representation before UPC (R. 8.1 RoP)
    • Lawyers and EPAs as parties must still be represented
    • Admissibility of public access request under R. 262.1(b) RoP
    • Late submission rule (R. 222.2 RoP)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2025-09-24Not public
Decision2025-05-06Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-05-05Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-05-05Not public
Decision2025-05-05Not public
Decision2025-05-05Public
Decision2025-05-05Not public
Interim-Conference-Decision2025-05-05Not public
Receipt2025-03-18Not public
Receipt2025-03-18Not public
Exhibit HL-Appeal 32025-03-17Not public
Application2025-03-17Not public
Exhibit HL-Appeal 32025-03-17Not public
Exhibit HL-Appeal 32025-03-17Not public
Application2025-03-17Not public
Exhibit HL-Appeal 32025-03-17Not public
Application to change a representative (RoP293) [Appointment of new Representative]2025-02-26Not public
Letter_UPC_Response_signed2025-02-26Not public
Final Order2025-02-12Not public
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-02-12Not public
Order on representation 12 February 20252025-02-12Public
Order on representation 12 February 20252025-02-12Not public
RESPNDENTS COMMENTS ON THE ORDER OF 4 DECEMBER 20242024-12-12Not public
Comments on order2024-12-12Not public
Exhibit HL Appeal 22024-12-12Not public
Order of 4 December 2024 APL 589352024-12-04Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-12-01Not public
Statement of Response2024-12-01Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-12-01Not public
Statement of Response2024-12-01Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-11-30Not public
Statement of Response2024-11-30Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-11-15Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-11-15Not public
Receipt2024-11-15Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-11-15Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2024-10-29Not public
Appeal2024-10-29Not public
Exhibit HL Appeal 12024-10-29Not public