Olivia Chriqui Guiot

#UPC News: Comment on UPC Court Decision of May 6, 2024 by Markus Adamczyk, Partner at PRÜFER & PARTNER mbB Before the Paris Local Division, in a case where the defendant had forced an intervener into the proceedings pursuant to Rule 316A RoP (forced intervention), the intervener has obtained a period of one month for filing its Application to Intervene as well as for filing its Statement in Intervention. Contrary to Rule 316.2 RoP, which mentions a "further period" for filing the Statement in Intervention, the Court did not set any such further period. Incidentally, the intervener’s one-month period for filing its Application to Intervene and its Statement in Intervention expired on March 19, 2024, which is almost identical to the end of the defendant’s three-month period for filing its Statement of Defence (March 18, 2024). The defendant's Statement of Defence did not include a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Court held that the intervener may not develop claims contrary to those of the party he supports and may not autonomously develop claims and procedural modalities different from those offered to the party it supports. Therefore, since the defendant’s term for filing a counterclaim also applies to the intervener, the intervener is not entitled to pose an own counterclaim after that term has expired. It would appear that, although not expressly stated, the Court considered that, in principle, an own counterclaim of the intervenient is admissible, albeit subject to the defendant’s terms. In addition, the #Court again rejected a request to change the language of the proceedings from French to English even though the language of the patent in question is English and the defendant itself, a French company and the only French party involved, previously and unsuccessfully had requested a change of the language of the proceedings from French to English. This shows that the bar for changing the language is very high. Case number UPC_CFI_440/2023, order date May 6, 2024 In our view, the #Court did not take sufficient account of the situation of the forced intervention. It is already challenging to set up a properly researched counterclaim of revocation within the three months granted to the defendant. To do so within one month could be considered outright impossible, especially as cooperation in a forced intervention cannot be expected. A corresponding obligation for the short term raises constitutional concerns. Still, the possibility of a separate revocation action remains. #UPC #intellectualproperty #decision

6

🔍 What's happening at the UPC? The Paris Central Division of the UPC issued a judgment on 29 July 2024, in the Bitzer Electronics v. Carrier Corporation case, addressing admissible amendments, late-filed grounds of revocation, and inventive step. 📝 Background: • Bitzer sought revocation of claim 1 of Carrier’s EP3414708. • Carrier applied to amend claim 1 and dependent claims 2 to 8. • Bitzer challenged the amendments to claims 2 to 8 and introduced new novelty and inventive step attacks against claim 1, unrelated to Carrier’s amendments. • Carrier objected to these late-filed attacks. ❔ Decision: • The UPC allowed the amendment of claim 1 but rejected amendments to claims 2 to 8, stating, “The request to amend the patent which concerns … claims not challenged by [the revocation action] is inadmissible.” The UPC clarified that patent amendments during litigation are a defense mechanism to counter invalidity claims and can only be made in response to specific challenges. However, the patent proprietor can propose amendments to challenged claims by adding features from unchallenged claims. • Bitzer's new grounds for revocation were deemed inadmissible as they were not related to Carrier’s defense or amendment application. The UPC stated, “Grounds for revocation that could have been included in the initial statement to revocation are inadmissible if they do not relate to the content of the defense raised by the opposing party or to the application to amend the patent and, therefore, do not constitute a legitimate response to them.” • The UPC stated that “Inventive step is assessed in terms of the specific problem encountered by the person skilled in the art”. 🎙 Takeaways: • Amendments to unchallenged claims are not allowed, but amendments to challenged claims using features from unchallenged claims are permissible if responding to a challenge. • Late-filed grounds for revocation are inadmissible, so it is crucial to include all possible grounds in the initial statement and attack the patent comprehensively. • The Paris division of the UPC is using the problem-solution approach for inventive step, similar to the European Patent Office. However it is not yet clear that this is the UPC’s established approach to inventive step.  Laurent Labatte Juliet Hibbert #PatentLaw #UPCCase #IPLaw #InventiveStep #LegalUpdate

36

Is it already the end of the month? The latest UPC case load is "hot off the press".👇 Some key figures: ⚖️ We are now at 341 cases since 1 June 2023, there is an uptick of 30 cases since the 311 cases reported at the end of March. This corresponds to an increase of 9.6%. ⚖️ Compared to the 110 infringement actions reported at the end of March, we now have 13 more with the total being at 123 infringement actions, which corresponds to an increase of 11.8%. ⚖️ The Munich Local Division is still leading the pack with now 46 infringement actions, followed by the Düsseldorf (25) and Mannheim (16) Local Divisions. This explains why of the three recently newly appointed legally qualified judges two were assigned to the Munich Local Division with a new panel to be created. ⚖️ Does English become the lingua franca of the UPC? While English has become the predominant language of proceedings at the Court of First Instance for the first time since the UPC reported its case load, the percentage is, with 48%, only slightly higher than the 45% of proceedings with German as language of proceedings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those who are less interested in the numbers, but would like to discuss he most important cases should consider attending the next UPC Fireside Chat on 4 July 2024 (https://lnkd.in/gsjynrn2). Speakers are presiding judge Matthias Zigann from the UPC CFI LD Munich, Tobias Wuttke (BARDEHLE PAGENBERG) and Thorsten Bausch (HOFFMANN EITLE). Those who are more interested in how to survive with the UPC Case Management System should consider attending the UPC CMS online course for paralegals on 13 and 14 May 2024 (https://lnkd.in/gd_BdTi3) or the online course for European Patent Litigators on 10 and 11 June 2024 (https://lnkd.in/gJAaVk-X). Speakers are from the companiy behind the UPC CMS. #patent #patents #patentattorney #patentlitigation #unifiedpatentcourt #ipknowledgeenhancer

46

The 16th issue of the Arendt Case Review has been released.   📰 Read the full newsletter here > https://lnkd.in/dVuHMtKi   📰 Lire la newsletter en français ici > https://lnkd.in/dCpPynuQ   ⚖ Our Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice > https://bit.ly/ArendtLitig   💻 Access our website here > https://lnkd.in/dsfWmQut   #Litigation #EUlaw #EU #CaseLaw #jurisprudence #Luxembourg #Law #LuxembourgLaw #EuropeanLaw #procedure #taxation #EmploymentLaw #Tax #GDPR #ContractLaw #Banking #Finance #Litigation #DisputeResolution

22

We are thrilled to invite you to the seminar organised by The Law Firm Network's Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group: ⏩  'Litigation Funding for Transactional and Litigation lawyers' ⏪ 📍The event (opened to non members), will take place in November 13, 2024 at the Paris offices of French member firm Ydès Avocats. The duration will be from 12:00 to 15:30 (we will start with a light lunch served at 12:00) TOPICS WILL COVER: 1) Opportunities for finance or corporate lawyers whose clients include private equity, distressed debt, real estate or multi strategy funds or family offices. This type of funds are expanding aggressively in the litigation funding space by acting as lenders or equity investors in the corporate claimants. 2) Opportunities for litigation or arbitration lawyers to obtain funding for their current litigation/ arbitration matters (thus ensuring stable fee collection) as well as to have a competitive advantage when pitching for a litigation / arbitration to a new client and offering the funding option as payment of the firm's fees. 3) Opportunities for law firms in general / their CEOs or managing partners looking to improve the firm's cash flow, ensure regular collections, insure any non payment of fees on litigation matters or to raise funds for operating expenses against a portfolio of the firm's transactional or litigation work. Speakers include: ▶️Dr. Roland Kläger, Partner at HAVER & MAILÄNDER Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB, Co-head arbitration and complex litigation. Stuttgart, Germany. ▶️Elena Rey, Head of Litigation Funding at Brown Rudnick LLP and the organiser of the annual European Litigation Funding Conference, Boston, US; London, UK. ▶️Valérie Nicod, Partner, Ydès Avocats, Head of dispute resolution, France. ▶️Dr Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Founding Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution at Pitkowitz & Partners, and President of the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), Vienna, Austria. ▶️Ayse Yazir ACII, Global Head of Origination Bench Walk Advisor, International funders, London, NY, Delaware, Florida, USA. ▶️Moshin Patel, Director, Factor Risk (insurer). London, UK. *Moderated by Dr. Roland Kläger and Elena Rey. Register here free of charge! Spaces are limited: https://lnkd.in/evMEqHY2 We look forward to meeting you in Paris! #ligitationfunding #thirdpartyfunding #legalfinance #corporatefinance #arbitrationfunding #disputefinance #commerciallitigation

12

1 commentaire

🔊[#NEWS] - Everything you always wanted to know about the application of cartel law in France   PDGB is pleased to make available a downloadable version of the French chapter of the Legal 500 Guide: Cartels, prepared by our Competition and EU Law Partner for the 6th edition (May 2024).   This chapter, in the form of a Q&A, provides an overview of the antitrust laws applicable in France and their implementation.   To download the full chapter on France ➡️ https://lnkd.in/eWgMDMDv #SustainableAdvice #Competition #UE #ExpertAdvice Virginie Coursière-Pluntz

19