UPC denies stay of proceedings in cases with co-pending EPO opposition

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UPC denies stay of proceedings in cases with co-pending EPO opposition

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
clock-2777504.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos says a Unified Patent Court decision not to stay a revocation action while a parallel EPO opposition proceeding takes place provides another indication of the court’s fast pace

When the Unified Patent Court (UPC) started operating on June 1 2023, future users of the court and patent practitioners awaited with interest how the court would apply rules 295(a) and 298 of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure (RoP). The rules lay down that the court may stay proceedings relating to a patent that is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO where a decision in such proceedings may be expected to be given rapidly.

The Court of Appeal of the UPC has now provided a first indication of its future practice in this respect. In case CoA_22/2024, the Court of Appeal confirmed a decision of the Court of First Instance not to stay a revocation action pending the outcome of parallel EPO opposition proceedings concerning the same patent.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings is not a sufficient reason to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC. The fact that the EPO proceedings were conducted at an accelerated pace was taken into account but not considered sufficient for the grant of stay.

The Court of First Instance subsequently decided on the merits of the case on July 29 2024 (case CFI_263/2023). Oral proceedings before the Opposition Division of the EPO (first instance) are scheduled for October 24 2024. The UPC revocation action and the EPO notice of opposition were filed on the same day, June 28 2023.

The case underlines that UPC proceedings run at a fast pace, and the UPC has sent a clear signal that parties should not expect a stay of proceedings on the mere ground that EPO opposition proceedings are in existence, even if such opposition proceedings are accelerated.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Gift this article