HAMBURG LOCAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Lukas Wosnitza, Michael Schneider, Sönke Scheltz and Désirée Heintz, Eisenführ Speiser
(UPC_CFI_88/2024, 25 July 2024), where both parties are global companies – the defendant’s preference takes precedence. Change of the Language of the Proceedings When the parties agree to change the language of the proceedings and one side later requests translations of existing documents, the court will weigh the need for efficiency and swift resolu - tion. It will prioritise maintaining the language in which the patent was granted, especially when the original party submitted its written argu - ments and evidence in English – see Easee B.V. and others v Visibly Inc (UPC_CFI_525/2024, 22 October 2024) Grounds for Extension of Time Limit The need to co-ordinate with non-European suppliers whose components are central to the alleged infringement is generally not a sufficient reason to grant an exceptional extension of a time limit. Similarly, strict confidentiality obliga - tions on the defendant typically do not justify an extension, as Rule 262A RoP provides mecha - nisms for protecting confidential information – see Xiaomi Technology v Daedalus Prime LLC (UPC_CFI_169/2024, 25 July 2024). 4.3 Third-Party Access to Documents In Ballinno B.V. v UEFA (UPC_CFI_151/2024, order of 17 September 2024), the applicant was granted access to the files. In doing so, the court took into account the parties’ interests in confi - dentiality (Rule 262.2 RoP) and granted access to documents partially redacted and partially unredacted. The court set the following standard for access to the files. The applicant has sub - mitted a reasoned request with respect to Rule 262.1 lit (b) RoP. The term “reasoned request” has to be understood to mean that the appli - cant needs to provide a credible explanation for
why he/she wants access to the pleadings or evidence. 4.4 Pending Procedural Issues As of 16 June 2025, the only publicly visible pro - cedural issue concerns the referral of the CoA to the LD HH in Fives ECL, SAS v REEL GmbH (UPC_CFI_274/2023, UPC_CoA_30/2024), which the authors discuss in more detail in 3.2 Leading Cases and 3.3 Pending Cases . 4.5 Influence of Prior Local Practice on Procedural Issues So far, the procedural decisions and the case management of the LD HH do not seem to sug - gest any influence of previous local practices; the LD HH seems to be somewhat more open to applications for extension of filing deadlines compared to other (German) local divisions, but this should not be considered as continuation of local practices of national procedure, but rather as a reasonably flexible and pragmatic approach under the UPC rules. 4.6 Court of Appeal Procedural Jurisprudence Fives ECL, SAS v REEL GmbH (UPC_ CFI_274/2023; ACT_559935/2023, 17 November 2023; UPC_CoA_30/2024, 16 January 2025) The Court of Appeal resolved the issue of whether separate actions for determination of damages are admissible after prior national pro - ceedings. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the UPC has jurisdiction to decide on acts of infringement committed before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. For more details on the case, refer to 3.2 Leading Cases and 3.3 Pending Cases .
39
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook