Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United Kingdom
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- within Privacy, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
A value-in-dispute determination is a procedural decision governed by R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP, even when included in the operative part of a final decision
The appellate regime of an order depends on its substantive nature, not on whether it appears alongside other orders in a final decision. A value-in-dispute determination could have been taken separately under R. 104(j) and R. 105.5 RoP or by the panel under R. 331.2, R. 333.5, or R. 336 RoP. Its inclusion in a final decision does not make it a “final decision” under R. 220.1(a) RoP.
Silence by the Court of First Instance within 15 days of a timely leave-to-appeal request constitutes a deemed refusal, preserving the right to discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP
If the Court of First Instance fails to decide on a timely request for leave to appeal within the 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP, this inaction is effectively treated as a refusal. The applicant may then file a request for discretionary review within 15 days from the end of that first 15-day period.
R. 22.1 RoP applies only to infringement actions and not to counterclaims for revocation, for which only a fixed fee is due
R. 22.1 RoP concerns value-based court fees for infringement actions. For counterclaims for revocation, only a fixed fee is payable under R. 26 in conjunction with R. 370.4 RoP. The value in dispute nonetheless remains relevant for counterclaims for revocation to determine the ceiling for recoverable costs under Art. 69(1) UPCA and the Administrative Committee’s Guidelines.
The Administrative Committee’s Guidelines on value in dispute are advisory; the Court retains full discretion under R. 370.6 RoP
Section 2.b)(2)(ii) of the Guidelines provides that the value of a revocation counterclaim “may be” assumed as equal to the infringement action “plus up to 50%,” but only “in the absence of relevant information.” The defendant’s argument that the erga omnes effect of revocation mandated a higher value was rejected, as the Court of First Instance had exercised its discretion with reference to case-specific circumstances.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_85/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Request for discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP)
5. Parties
Applicant (Defendant/Counterclaimant): Speed Care Mineral GmbH vs. Respondent (Claimant/Counterdefendant): Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
6. Patent(s)
Place patent(s)
7. urisdictions
EP 2 077 811
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 220.1 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP, R. 220.3 RoP, R. 22.1 RoP, R. 26 RoP, R. 104(j) RoP, R. 105.5 RoP, R. 102.1 RoP, R. 331.2 RoP, R. 333.1 RoP, R. 333.5 RoP, R. 336 RoP, R. 370.4 RoP, R. 370.6 RoP, Art. 69(1) UPCA.
To view the full article please click here.
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.
[View Source]