- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
1. Key takeaways
No further written submissions after the oral hearing
Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, upon a reasoned request by a party submitted before the closure of the written procedure, allow the exchange of further written submissions. After this point, there is no basis for submitting additional written submissions, particularly not without prior approval of the court. This applies even more so after the oral hearing. Once the oral hearing has concluded, the case is ready for decision, and the parties should refrain from any further exchanges with the court. At no point thereafter is it necessary to summarize what was said during the oral hearing.
In particular, there is no need or justification to respond in writing to an introduction by the court in the oral hearing. Such an introduction, which is in no way binding on the court, serves to focus attention on the issues the court considers particularly relevant and allows the parties to concentrate on the arguments they deem important, either to confirm the preliminary view or to persuade the court of a differing opinion.
2. Division
CoA Luxembourg
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_764/2024; UPC_CoA_774/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings
5. Parties
Appellant/Defendant: expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
Respondent/Claimant: Seoul Viosys., Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 926 698 B1
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 36 RoP
CoA_August-21-2025_UPC_CoA_764-2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
