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

Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
A Tokyo District Court ruling concerning movie spoilers, and a second chance for VLSI against Intel were also among the top talking points
Practitioners believe new AI tools at the USPTO will not replace lawyers or disrupt revenue, but instead expose where a trademark attorney’s value lies
Leighton Cassidy Legal hopes to leverage its founder's international experience and provide clients with a rare chance to receive litigation and prosecution under one umbrella
Gift this article