- within Technology topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Admissibility of new auxiliary requests is not necessarily determined upfront
The Court did not rule on the admissibility of new auxiliary requests filed with the Statement of grounds of appeal in a separate, preliminary ruling. It found that the assessment of admissibility of those requests required consideration of the procedural history of the case and the procedural and substantive context in which the requests were filed, which can be more appropriately be assessed in the context of the appeal as a whole. A separate pre-emptive ruling is only warranted in exceptional circumstances, which have not been shown here.
Respondents must address admissibility and merits in parallel
Since the content of the additional auxiliary requests is fully known to the respondents, they can address both admissibility objections and substantive arguments within the ordinary deadline for their Statement of response. No extended deadline is granted merely because admissibility has not yet been formally resolved.
2. Division
Court of Appeal, Panel 1c
3. UPC number
UPC-CoA-63/2026; UPC-CoA-64/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal – procedural order on admissibility of additional auxiliary requests
5. Parties
Appellant: Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., Carlsbad, USA
Respondents: Koninklijke Philips N.V.; Philips RS North America LLC; Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 437 696 B2
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 73(4) UPCA
R. 222.2 RoP
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]
