2023-12-19 - 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:
- Procedural Order
- Parteien:
- N.V. Nutricia v. Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
Kernaussage: Even if the panel is to decide by order on the procedure under Art.
2023-12-19 - LD Düsseldorf - Nutricia
v.
Nestlé Health Science - UPC_CFI_201/2023
Even if the panel is to decide by order on the procedure under Art. 33(3) UPCA as soon as possible after the conclusion of the written procedure pursuant to Rule 37.1 RoP, the panel may take an earlier decision pursuant to Rule 37.2 RoP if it takes into account the parties' submissions and grants them the right to be heard.
2. The joint hearing of infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation may be appropriate for reasons of efficiency alone. It is also advantageous from a substantive point of view, since it allows a decision on both the validity and the question of infringement based on a uniform interpretation of the patent in suit by the same panel in the same composition.
3. Although validity and infringement issues in the chemical/pharmaceutical field can be demanding, the panel is composed of judges who are very experienced in patent law and familiar with difficult issues in this context. The assignment of the TQJ, who is experienced in the technical field in question, ensures that the Local Division is undoubtedly capable of deciding both matters.
routine
The Düsseldorf Local Division, acting under R. 37.1 RoP, took an early Art. 33(3) UPCA decision — before closure of the written procedure and with no party objection — to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA, rather than referring the revocation counterclaim to the Central Division or staying it. Early resolution of the bifurcation question was said to be justified by procedural efficiency at a Court 'still under construction': early allocation of the technically qualified judge enables timely case-management planning. On the merits of the choice, joint hearing was preferred for efficiency reasons and because it allows validity and infringement to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by a panel strengthened by a TQJ experienced in the chemical/pharmaceutical field.
Stichwörter
Proceeding with regard to Art. 33(3) UPCA; discretion to proceed; infringement action; counterclaim for revocation; assignment of a technically qualified judge; TQJ