| 2024-02-08 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled that a member of the public who requests access to the register under R. 262.1(b) RoP must be represented before the UPC, as such a person is in an adversarial situation that requires representation. The unrepresented respondent's Statement of Response was disregarded, and the respondent was given time to remedy the lack of representation. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | Court of Appeal standing judge (11 January 2024) allowed Netgear's request for discretionary review, permitting Netgear to appeal the CFI judge-rapporteur's order of 11 December 2023, holding that the JR could not himself decide on the admissibility of a R. 333 review application of his own decision. The case was referred to the President of the CoA for assignment to a panel. |
| 2024-01-11 | UPC_CoA_486/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 333 | Procedural | Procedural only | German-language version of the same CoA standing judge order of 11 January 2024 granting Netgear's request for discretionary review and permitting appeal of the JR's 11 December 2023 order. |
| 2024-01-10 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application RoP262.1 (b) | Procedural | Dismissed | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 January 2024 refusing two applications to intervene in the appeal by Ocado against the public register access order. Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP applied to intervene, arguing they had parallel pending R. 262 applications before the Central Division that raised the same legal issues. The CoA rejected both applications as inadmissible for lack of legal interest in the result of the appeal: a party applicant whose separate R. 262 application is stayed pending the appeal's outcome does not have a sufficient legal interest under the UPC intervention rules, as the outcome of the appeal would not directly and necessarily affect their own applications. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_APP_594342/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | German-language Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response (R. 9.3(b) RoP) in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 3 096 315. Same outcome and reasoning as App_594327/2023 and App_594339/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-20 | UPC_APP_594342/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | English translation of the Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 3 096 315. Same reasoning as App_594327/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_APP_594339/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) rejected OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for lodging a Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings (EP 2 568 724, misidentified in the filing as EP 3 096 315). Same outcome and reasoning as App_594327/2023: request filed on last available day, insufficient time for respondent, contrary to principles of proportionality and fairness. Proceedings closed. This is the German-language version of the order. |
| 2023-12-19 | UPC_APP_594339/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | English translation of the Court of Appeal order (Second Panel) rejecting OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the Statement of Response (R. 9.3(b) RoP) in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings for EP 2 568 724. Same reasoning as App_594327/2023. Proceedings closed. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_APP_594327/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | motionName.appeal_decision | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal (Second Panel) rejected OPPO's request for shortening of the time period for the respondent's Statement of Response in the appeal concerning the language of proceedings (EP 2 207 270). The CoA found that the request was filed on the last day of the available period, leaving insufficient time for the respondent, and that granting the request would be contrary to principles of proportionality, fairness and equity. The proceedings were closed. |
| 2023-12-18 | UPC_CoA_472/2023 | Court of Appeal | Application for an Order for expedition of an appeal (RoP225(e)) | — | Dismissed | The Court of Appeal rejected OPPO/OROPE's application to shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's statement of response in an appeal concerning the language of proceedings (Rule 323 RoP), pursuant to Rule 225(e) and 9.3(b) RoP. The application was filed on the last day of the time limit and did not adequately consider the respondent's (Panasonic's) right to adequate preparation time. |
| 2023-12-11 | UPC_CoA_404/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Case management order from the Court of Appeal dated 11 December 2023 in Ocado v. Autostore appeal concerning access to the statement of claim by a third party (GDPR-redacted respondent). The order corrects a CMS error incorrectly designating the Autostore companies as respondents (the respondent is the individual third party applicant). The CoA notes Ocado's submission that four defendants were never served and intends to address this later. The order invites parties to comment on whether R. 8 RoP (representation requirement) applies to the individual respondent who represents himself. |
| 2023-10-13 | UPC_CoA_320/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (German language version) addressed the date of service of the Statement of claim and term extensions. The Court held: (1) A Statement of claim can be validly served even if annexes are not simultaneously uploaded, provided the statement alone enables the defendant to assert its rights. (2) If a claimant fails to upload annexes simultaneously with the Statement of claim contrary to R.13.2 RoP, this in itself constitutes sufficient grounds for a defendant's request for term extension (without regard to the nature or content of the annexes). (3) The extension must compensate for the period during which the annexes were unavailable. This is a duplicate/German language version of the same decision published in English (see final-order-appeal-572929-eng_0.pdf). |
| 2023-10-13 | UPC_CoA_320/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal (English language version) ruled on the date of service of the Statement of claim and term extensions for preliminary objection and statement of defence. Key holdings: (1) A Statement of claim can be validly served even without annexes, provided it enables the defendant to assert rights before the UPC courts. (2) Non-simultaneous upload of annexes contrary to R.13.2 RoP is itself sufficient for a defendant to request term extension, regardless of the content of the annexes. (3) The extension should equal the period during which annexes were unavailable after service. This is the English version of the same decision (see final-order-appeal-572929-002.pdf for German version). |