UPC_CoA_937/2025

MODULAR POINT-OF-CARE DEVICES AND USES THEREOF

AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealWritten Phase

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
UPC_CoA_22/2024	jurisdiction	Binding	the interests of harmonisation in general do not require a stay by the UPC where it can be expected that the UPC will issue its decision first (UPC_CoA_22/2024, 28 May 2024, Carrier v BITZER, paragraph 25)
UPC_CoA_5/2025	jurisdiction	Binding	must be interpreted, inter alia, in the light of the relevant circumstances of the case (UPC_CoA_5/2025, 30 April 2025, Juul v NJOY, paragraph 5)
UPC_CoA_511/2024	jurisdiction	Binding	The Court may stay proceedings under Art. 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP where it can be expected that the OD of the EPO will give its decision rapidly (UPC_CoA_511/2024, 21 November 2024, Meril v Edwards, paragraphs 19-21)
UPC_CoA_511/2024	jurisdiction	Binding	the fact that the expected EPO decision is not a final decision and is likely to be appealed is one of several factors (UPC_CoA_511/2024, 21 November 2024, Meril v Edwards, paragraph 22)

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
295(a)	jurisdiction	Binding	regarding an application to stay proceedings (R. 295(a) RoP) and a request for extension of a time period (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
9.3(a)	urgency	Binding	a request for extension of a time period (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
220.5	jurisdiction	Binding	other, more efficient means can be used to align the revocation and infringement proceedings, such as hearing the appeals together pursuant to R. 220.5 RoP

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
Article 33(10) UPCA	jurisdiction	Binding	Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.