MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
ing a unified European patent jurisprudence independent of any single national tradition. 4.6 Court of Appeal Procedural Jurisprudence Even though the UPC is still in its early stages, several examples have already emerged where the Court of Appeal (referred to in this section as the CoA) has addressed important procedural issues that resolved previous differences, or at least uncertainties. A few examples follow. One example refers to the fundamental ques - tion on the interaction between the UPC and national patent proceedings during the transi - tional period. In cases where national proceed - ings are already pending, the UPC must decide whether it has jurisdiction and whether it should stay the proceedings. The key issue is the inter - pretation and applicability of Articles 29–32 and Article 71c (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast Reg), which provide the rules for the courts of the EU member states on how to co-ordinate civil proceedings that are identi - cal, or related to each other, and are pending simultaneously in different member states. In its 17 September 2024 order in Mala v Nokia (UPC_CoA_227/2024, APL_26889/2024), the CoA found that the UPC must consider national proceedings that were already pending before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. It provided some clarity on conflicting views (CD Paris in Mala v Nokia compared to LD Paris in Abbott v Dexcom), but naturally did not define in general when the UPC would decline jurisdiction or stay proceedings due to a parallel national revocation action. Another example is the already-mentioned deci - sion Ocado v Autostore of 10 April 2024 (UPC_ CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023) regarding the appropriate standard to be applied when
considering requests by third parties for access to written pleadings and evidence, pursuant to Rule 262.1 (b) RoP. 5. Economic Issues and Remedies 5.1 Case Value and Court Fees Generally, the value of the matter under dispute is relevant for the calculation of the court fees as well as the calculation of the recoverable law - yers’ and patent attorneys’ fees. So far, only isolated revocation actions have been filed before the CD Munich. Since the court fee for such actions is fixed at EUR20,000, regard - less of the value in dispute, claimants would not need to specify a case value for fee purposes. However, parties still assess the value of the pro - ceedings for the determination of the ceiling of recoverable costs. For example, in Kunststoff KG Nehl v Häfele (UPC 526/2024, ACT_51533/2024, ORD_18972/2025, order issued on 18 April 2025), the claimant assessed the value at EUR500,000. The valua - tion remained uncontested. In accordance with the table of ceilings for reimbursable costs (vary - ing depending on the value) in dispute published by the Administrative Committee on 24 April 2023 (D-AC/10/24042023_D), the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) stated that the ceiling corresponding to a value of EUR500,000 would be set at EUR56,000. It added that parties may submit, in advance of the decision at the oral hearing by way of application of Rule 9 RoP, a preliminary estimate of the legal costs that they will seek to recover. Moreover, the parties were, notwithstanding the aforesaid, encouraged to find agreement on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate and/or on how to allocate costs depending on the out -
24
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook