1. Key takeaways
Decision against bifurcation before closure of written procedure
The Local Division The Hague decided to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation (Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA) and not to bifurcate. This desicsion was taken before the closure of the written procedure (R. 37.2 RoP) for practical reasons. The decision was in conformity with the preferences of both parties. A joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaim was considered to be appropriate in particular for reasons of procedural expediency and avoiding the risk of delay that might be involved with bifurcating. The decision also found it preferable because it allows both issues – validity and infringement – to be decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel composed of the same judges.
2. Division
LD The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_239/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. vs Arkyne Technologies S.L.
6. Patent(s)
EP2137782
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 33(3)(a) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP and R. 264 RoP
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
