2023-08-24 - CD Munich - Sanofi v. Amgen - UPC_CFI_1/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_1/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
Kernaussage: Preliminary objection ex Rule 48/19.
2023-08-24 - CD Munich - Sanofi
v.
Amgen - UPC_CFI_1/2023
Preliminary objection ex Rule 48/19.1(b) RoP. For determining competence of the divisions of the UPC in the context of Article 33.4 UPCA, second sentence, the central division needs to establish if a statement of claim to bring an infringement action has been lodged at a local or regional division and, if so, at what date and time this was done. Central division competent because revocation action was filed before the infringement action.
Under the circumstances that the CMS has ceased to function, in accordance with Rule 4.2 RoP, a Statement of revocation may be lodged at the Registry seated in Luxembourg or at a sub-registry.
landmark
In the first substantive preliminary-objection ruling of the UPC, the Central Division (Munich Section) established the interpretation of Art. 33.4 UPCA on internal competence between the central division and local/regional divisions in parallel revocation/infringement scenarios. 'Bringing' an action means the objective act of lodging the Statement of Claim or Statement of Revocation, determined by its exact date and time of lodging, not by any later registration, formal check or public register appearance. Under Rule 4.2 RoP, when the CMS is inoperative, a hard-copy Statement of Revocation may be lodged either at the Luxembourg Registry or at a sub-registry — the Luxembourg Registry is the Registry of the whole Court and not only of the Court of Appeal, and the Registry Rules cannot override the RoP. On the facts, the revocation action was brought at 11:26 on 1 June 2023 and the infringement action only at 11:45, so the central division was competent under Art. 33.4 first sentence UPCA; the PO and cost request were rejected and leave to appeal granted.
Stichwörter
Preliminary objection, Rule 48/19.1(b) RoP, Article 33.4 UCPA,
internal competence, competence central division (yes), date and time of lodging, Article 4.2 RoP, hard-copy lodging, Registry Rules