2024-08-20 - Court of - Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril et al. - UPC_CFI_380/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_380/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Nordic Baltic Regional Division
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Meril vs Edwards
Kernaussage: During the written procedure, Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP give the Court a possibility to stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO, if a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO.
2024-08-20 - Court of - Edwards Lifesciences
v.
Meril et al. - UPC_CFI_380/2023
During the written procedure, Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP give the Court a possibility to stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO, if a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO. Rule 118.2(b) RoP, which includes an obligation to stay proceedings in certain situations, only apply during the oral procedure. This follows from the title of Rule 118 (“Decision on the merits”) and the fact that it is placed in the Chapter of the RoP governing the oral procedure.
An application to stay proceedings based on Article 33(3) (b) UPCA, may be dismissed if submitted before the local or regional division when no one has proposed bifurcation.
The court dismissed the request to stay the proceedings.
Stichwörter
Request for stay, Article 33(10) UPCA, Rule 295 RoP, Rule 118.2(2) RoP