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 2026

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

Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Benoit Geurts and Coreena Brinck will help the firm ‘accelerate its innovation agenda’, according to its managing partner
News of a trademark row over Taylor Swift’s ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ and Nokia’s expansion of its IoT licensing programme were also among the top talking points
IP attorneys share how the Cox v Sony ruling impacts their counselling strategies, and if the case could influence how courts may assess liability for AI platforms
Natasha Daughtrey shares how firms can help their women litigators take the lead on trials, and why she is seeing a convergence of tech and life sciences disputes
The LMG Life Sciences Awards is thrilled to present the shortlist for the 2024 EMEA Awards
Having agreed to a cost cap in the landmark Emotional Perception AI case, the government should do the right thing and pay at least the bare minimum
Ruth Hoy will join the firm's IP practice alongside Huw Cookson, who will also become a partner
Gift this article