Overview · Filed: Sep 27, 2024
UPC_CoA_563/2024
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 4
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 | language regime — representative independence | Binding | Art. 48 (5) UPCA, R. 8.1 and R. 290.2 RoP, and Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Representatives |
| 290.2 | language regime — Code of Conduct for representatives | Binding | Art. 2.4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Representatives who appear before the Court according to R. 290.2 RoP |
| 222.1 | language regime — statement of appeal defines scope of appeal proceedings | Binding | Pursuant to R. 222.1 and 2 RoP, only facts and arguments the appellant submitted in the Statement of appeal constitute the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal |
| 36 | language regime — reasoned request for reply required | Binding | Suinno did not file a reasoned request for a reply to the Respondent's Statement of response, as required by R. 36 RoP. |
EPC article · 3
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48(5) | language regime — representative independence requirement | Binding | No corporate representative of a legal person [...] may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative [...] is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA. |
| 48(1) | language regime — qualification of UPC representatives | Binding | qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA |
| 48(2) | language regime — European patent attorney as qualified representative | Binding | Although [representative] is qualified as a European patent attorney and entitled, in general, to represent a party in UPC proceedings pursuant to Art. 48(2) UPCA |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.