HAMBURG LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Lukas Wosnitza, Michael Schneider, Sönke Scheltz and Désirée Heintz, Eisenführ Speiser
2.4 Time Lines The timelines at the LD HH are well within the expected and desired range. In fact, there have already been proceedings on the merits that were concluded within 12 months. According to the judges, there is currently no backlog at this division. The primary challenge, however, lies in schedul - ing oral hearings. Even in cases where all written submissions had been filed and the matter was ready for hearing, setting a hearing date proved difficult. In some instances, the earliest available date was nearly five months later. These delays are largely due to scheduling conflicts involving the parties, as well as the additional legally quali - fied and technical judges – particularly when they are based abroad. This scheduling issue is not unique to Hamburg; it is a structural chal - lenge faced by all UPC divisions. 2.5 Interaction Between Central and Local/Regional Divisions The LD HH has not yet referred any of its infringe - ment actions and/or counterclaims for revoca - tion to the Central Chamber for a decision. 3. Substantive Law 3.1 Topics Covered Details of cases concluded at the LD HH are provided in the following. • Avago v Tesla, UPC_CFI_54/2023: (a) application for extension of time limit rejected, Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP); (b) provisional procedural order for secrecy, Rule 262A RoP; (c) request for secrecy granted, Rule 262A RoP, Article 58 of the Unified Patent Court
Agreement (UPCA), Article 9 Directive (EU) 2016/943; (d) clarification of time limits; (e) order to produce evidence/communicate information granted, Rules 190 and 191 RoP; (f) dismissal of the action, counterclaim for revocation partially granted; and (g) withdrawal of the application for determi - nation of costs, Rules 156 and 265 RoP. • AGFA v Gucci, UPC_CFI_278/2023: (a) extension of deadlines in the case of a plurality of defendants; extension was granted, Rule 9 RoP; (b) confidentiality request granted, Rule 262A RoP; and (c) dismissal of claim, counterclaim for revo - cation dismissed. • 10x Genomics, Harvard University v Vizgen Inc, UPC_CFI_22/2023: (a) request for extension of time granted, Rule 9 RoP; (b) on the admissibility and merits of the request for production of documents re - lating to non-technical objections (abuse of rights), request for production granted, Rules 190 and 191 RoP; (c) request for production granted, Rules 190 and 191 RoP; (d) confidentiality granted, Rule 262A RoP; (e) production of documents, Article 59 (1) UPCA, Rules 190 and 191 RoP, confi - dentiality (Rules 190.1, 191.2 and 262A.1 RoP), request for production granted; and (f) further request for amendment of the pat - ent (Rule 30 RoP) rejected after review. • Fives ECL, SAS v REEL GmbH UPC_ CFI_22/2023, UPC_CFI_559935/2023: (a) preliminary objection Rule19.1 RoP, juris - diction of the UPC, Article 32 (1) UPCA, determination of damages, national pat -
35
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook