2025-05-07 - LD Hamburg - Jingao Solar v. Astronergy et al. - UPC_CFI_429/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_429/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v. Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.

Kernaussage: The Hamburg Local Division granted leave under Rule 263 RoP to extend an infringement claim to eight territories outside the UPC system, following the CJEU's decision in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux (C-339/22) and the first-instance decisions that preceded it.

2025-05-07 - LD Hamburg - Jingao Solar v. Astronergy et al. - UPC_CFI_429/2024
🗂️Nur Fallakte
🏛️Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division• Order
📅2025-05-07
🔢UPC_CFI_429/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
Christopher MAIERHÖFER
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
Astronergy Europe GmbH
Astronergy GmbH
Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH
Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
Phillip REKTORSCHEK
⚖️Infringement
🌐English

notable
The Hamburg Local Division granted leave under Rule 263 RoP to extend an infringement claim to eight territories outside the UPC system, following the CJEU's decision in BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux (C-339/22) and the first-instance decisions that preceded it. The order sets out the structure of Rule 263.2 RoP: its conditions (a) and (b) are cumulative and negatively formulated, so where the applicant fails to satisfy the Court of either, leave must be refused and the Court has no discretion. On condition (a) the Court held, following the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_169/2025 at [23], that the claimant could not have been expected to plead non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim while the case law following GAT v LuK (C-4/03) made the Court's competence uncertain. On condition (b) the hindrance to the defendants was met by extending their rejoinder deadline by three months, which the claimant did not oppose. The objection that no legal basis exists for such a claim against a defendant domiciled in China was held to go to whether the request is justified in the main proceedings, not to its admissibility.

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren