MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
3.4 Technically Qualified Judges Technically qualified judges play a vital role within the UPC system by ensuring that com - plex scientific and technical aspects of cases are accurately understood and appropriately evalu - ated. Their significance is underscored by their growing numbers and a number of recent new appointments. In total, there are currently around 75 technically qualified judges, most of them in the fields of physics and mechanical engineer - ing. In the Central Division, the panel is typically composed of two legally qualified judges and one technically qualified judge allocated from the pool of judges in accordance with Article 18 (3) UPCA, with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned. This com - position fosters a high level of interdisciplinary collaboration and ensures that legal reasoning is firmly anchored in a solid understanding of the underlying technical subject matter. To the authors’ knowledge, there is nothing specific to report on the interaction with parties’ representatives and experts (if any). There are no general patterns that can be identified. 3.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Substantive Legal Decisions At the CD Munich, there is no discernible ten - dency for substantive legal decisions to be shaped by German or other national court prac - tices. Instead, the CD Munich is consciously developing its own legal standards, clearly aim - ing to establish a unified body of European pat - ent jurisprudence that stands independent of any single national tradition. This approach has also been publicly confirmed by Judge Voß.
3.6 Court of Appeal Substantive Jurisprudence There is no applicable information in this juris - diction.
4. Procedural Issues 4.1 Hearing Structure
It can be said that a typical hearing structure has begun to emerge, though practice is still devel - oping. In most cases, hearings follow a stream - lined and disciplined format, reflecting the UPC’s overarching aim of efficiency, its front-loaded character and the fact that an interim conference usually will have taken place already. At the outset of the hearing, the presiding judge or the panel will provide introductory remarks that outline the main issues. In most cases, the remarks will include the panel’s preliminary views and highlight specific issues that the panel con - siders particularly relevant. After these remarks, the parties are invited to respond directly to those issues. The panel expects oral arguments to be focused and responsive to the issues raised in the introduction, rather than a repetition of writ - ten submissions. If a party wishes to address an issue not mentioned in the introduction, they are allowed to do so, but the focus usually remains on issues identified by the panel. This approach appears similar to the approach known from German national proceedings. Hearings generally align with time blocks com - municated in advance, typically half-day or full- day sessions, and – so far – they tend to adhere closely to the anticipated duration. 4.2 Key Procedural Issues Over the past 24 months, the Central Division Munich has addressed a range of procedural
20
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook