2024-06-21 - CoA - Mala Technologies v. Nokia - UPC_CoA_227/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_227/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Appeal Order
- Parteien:
- Mala Technologies Ltd. v. Nokia Technology GmbH
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-06-21 - CoA - Mala Technologies
v.
Nokia - UPC_CoA_227/2024
1. If an appeal is lodged against an order rejecting a preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal may stay the proceedings at first instance on a “reasoned request” by a party (Rule 21.2 RoP). A statement which does not set out the reasons why the first instance proceedings should be stayed does not constitute a reasoned request.
2. The arguments presented by the applicant at the interim conference cannot remedy the lack of reasoning in its written statement. The interim conference may be used to further clarify the reasoning for a stay request. However, also in view of the defendant’s right to prepare its defence, it cannot be used to present the grounds for the request for the first time.
significant
Mala, proprietor of EP 2 044 709 B1 (valid only in Germany), had successfully defended the German part of the patent against a German national revocation action filed by Nokia Solutions on 29 April 2021 (upheld by the Bundespatentgericht on 18 July 2023; Nokia Solutions appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof on 15 January 2024). On 15 December 2023 Nokia Technology GmbH filed a UPC revocation action at the Paris CD (UPC_CFI_484/2023). Mala lodged a preliminary objection (16 February 2024) challenging UPC jurisdiction on Brussels I-recast grounds (Art. 29 et seq., 71a-c, 72b(2)) because of the parallel German proceedings, and requested auxiliary stays until (a) the BGH decides, (b) the preliminary objection is decided. The Paris CD on 2 May 2024 rejected the preliminary objection, refused stays, and refused a deadline extension for the revocation defence. Mala appealed and, in the appeal, additionally requested that the CoA stay the Paris CD revocation proceedings until the preliminary-objection appeal is decided.
By the order, the judge-rapporteur (Blok) following an interim conference (17 June 2024):
(i) The stay request is INADMISSIBLE. R.21.2 RoP requires a 'reasoned request' — Mala's statement of appeal and grounds did not set out any reasons why the revocation proceedings should be stayed pending the appeal.
(ii) Arguments presented at the interim conference cannot cure the lack of reasoning in the written statement. The interim conference may be used to further clarify reasoning, but — given the respondent's right to prepare its defence — it cannot be used to present grounds for the first time.
(iii) On the merits (obiter): the general rule, derived from R.19.6 RoP and Art. 74.1 UPCA (following UPC_CoA_301/2024, 19 June 2024), is that CFI proceedings continue unhindered by procedural appeals. A stay under exceptional circumstances may be granted, considering the stage of the revocation proceedings (at the final stage of written procedure — only Nokia's rejoinder to the reply outstanding, due ~21 July 2024), the stage of the appeal (written procedure closed; oral hearing 24 July 2024), and the parties' interests. The costs of continuing are low for Mala (since Nokia is the one filing next); the impugned order is not manifestly wrong on cursory examination.
(iv) Oral hearing set for 24 July 2024 at 14:00 CEST by videoconference, with parties' consent. Each side 45 min main pleading + 20 min reply / rejoinder.
Stichwörter
Reasoned request to stay proceedings pending appeal, Appeal