2024-01-08 - CD Paris - BITZER Electronics v. Carrier - UPC_CFI_263/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: In one of the first UPC decisions on Art. 33(10) UPCA / Rule 295(1)(a) RoP, Paris CD (Panel 2 — Thomas presiding, Catallozzi JR, Keltsch TQJ) rejected Carrier's application to stay Bitzer's revocation action on EP 3 414 708 pending the EPO opposition against the same patent. The panel formulated a three-part test for 'rapid decision': the Court must weigh the opposing interests of the parties in a timely UPC decision against avoiding costs of parallel proceedings, taking into account (i) the expected date of the EPO (or national) decision, (ii) the expected date of the UPC judgment (benchmarked on Preamble 7 RoP's approximately one-year target), and (iii) whether a stay until the expected EPO decision would cause unjustifiable harm to the claimant's right of access to justice. Where the EPO proceedings are near the end and UPC proceedings have just begun, a stay is convenient; the reverse cuts against a stay. The panel held that a wider territorial or substantive scope of the EPO opposition is not a proper basis for stay, as that would disproportionately limit the claimant's right of access to justice against a mere procedural-efficiency concern. On the facts, Carrier offered no concrete proof of when the EPO decision would issue — representatives' 'experience' of 9-10 months being unsupported — while the UPC judgment was expected within approximately one year. The 'rapid decision' requirement was not met; leave to appeal granted because consistent interpretation is needed.

Stichwörter: parallel EPO proceedings ; rapid decision

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Referenz: ORD_591040/2023

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_263/2023