2023-09-22 - LD Düsseldorf - Nutricia v. Nestlé Health Science - UPC_CFI_201/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_201/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- N.V. Nutricia v. Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
Kernaussage: 1.
2023-09-22 - LD Düsseldorf - Nutricia
v.
Nestlé Health Science - UPC_CFI_201/2023
1. Pursuant to R. 33.1 and .2 RoP, any party to the proceedings may lodge an Application for allocating a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to the panel, which request shall be lodged as early as possible in the written procedure.
2. The allocation of the TQJ shall be made by the President of the Court of First Instance after consulting the judge-rapporteur. This consultation is not limited to the question of the relevant field of technology. Rather, the consultation extends to the question of whether, in the opinion of the judge-rapporteur, the involvement of a technically qualified judge is necessary at all, taking into account the issues in dispute.
3. By its very nature, the earliest time at which such an assessment could be made is after the filing of the statement of defence. If a request for the allocation of a TQJ is lodged at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the judge-rapporteur may postpone the submission of the Defendant’s request to the President of the Court of First Instance until the statement of defence has been lodged.
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Thom) held that the panel's obligation under Art. 8(5) UPCA and R. 33(3) RoP to forward a request for allocation of a technically qualified judge to the President of the Court of First Instance is not immediate. The consultation of the judge-rapporteur foreseen in R. 33(3) RoP extends beyond the technical field to the substantive question of whether a TQJ is needed at all, which cannot be meaningfully assessed before the statement of defence is on file. Premature allocation would hamper efficient case management and the one-year oral-hearing objective under Preamble (7) RoP. The defendant's R. 33 RoP application was therefore procedurally postponed, not refused on the merits.
Stichwörter
Technically qualiefied judge (TQJ), defendant, request, allocation, President, Court of First Instance, submission, postponement, judge-rapporteur, statement of defence