2025-06-02 - LD Milan - Dainese v. Alpinestars - UPC_CFI_472/2024

1.Where all parties request the stay of proceedings pursuant rule 295, lett. d, RoP, the Court has no discretion, but It must order the stay, despite the use of the word ‘may’ at the beginning of the Rule. This interpretation is based on the following principles: the parties are free to determine the subject matter of their case (Art 43 UPCA); the Court must decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties (Art 76(1) UPCA). 2. These conclusions also apply to only one of the two patents involved. The proceedings may continue in respect of the other patent, in respect of which infringement proceedings are pending and in relation to which the parties have an interest in concluding the written procedure within the time limits set.

The Milan Local Division stayed the proceedings on one of two parallel patents on joint request by the parties. The Court stated that in case of a joint request, Rule 295 did not provide the court discretion.