Overview · Filed: Aug 1, 2024
UPC_CoA_454/2024
METHOD AND MEANS FOR BROWSING BY WALKING
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 6
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 361 | jurisdiction — manifestly inadmissible application | Binding | An appeal against an order denying the request to reject an action as manifestly bound to fail according to R.361 RoP is admissible under the requirements of R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP. |
| 220.2 | jurisdiction — admissibility of appeal from case management order | Binding | An appeal against an order denying the request to reject an action as manifestly bound to fail according to R.361 RoP is admissible under the requirements of R.220.2 and R.220.3 RoP. |
| 220.3 | jurisdiction — discretionary review by CoA limited to panel orders | Binding | A discretionary review by the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.220.3 RoP is only admissible, if leave to appeal against the impugned order is required (R.220.2 RoP (1)) and the Court of First Instance refused to grant leave within 15 days of the order (R.220.3 RoP (2)). |
| 262A | language regime — access restriction to confidential agreements | Background | Microsoft has filed an application pursuant to R.361 RoP (App_28103/2024) to reject (I) claimant's application pursuant R.262A RoP of April 9, 2024 |
| 290.2 | language regime — code of conduct compliance | Background | The grounds for the order addresses Microsoft's objection of inadmissibility of the request, based on the grounds of a violation of R.290.2 RoP in relation to the non-compliance with the Code of Conduct by Suinno's representative. |
| 333 | jurisdiction — panel review of judge-rapporteur order | Background | Microsoft filed a request for panel review of the impugned order pursuant to R.333 RoP (App_42138/2024) to the Court of First Instance. |
EPC article · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 58 | language regime — confidentiality of documents | Binding | the judge-rapporteur granted the request of 9 April 2024 and ordered 'pursuant to Article 58 UPCA and R.262A RoP' that the access to Agreements A&B is restricted |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CoA_586/2024 Court of Appeal | Oct 9, 2024 | security for costs — discretionary review admissibility conditions | Binding | see CoA order of the Standing judge on 21 August 2024, UPC_CoA_454/2024, APL_44552/2024, para 21 |
| UPC_CoA_570/2024 Court of Appeal | Oct 15, 2024 | jurisdiction — prior discretionary review inadmissible for same order | Binding | On 01 August 2024 Microsoft lodged a request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of the order issued by the judge-rapporteur (ORD_33379/2024), which was held inadmissible by the Standing judge of the Court of appeal in an order dated 21 August 2024 (APL_44552/2024). |