UPC denies stay of proceedings in cases with co-pending EPO opposition

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

UPC denies stay of proceedings in cases with co-pending EPO opposition

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
clock-2777504.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos says a Unified Patent Court decision not to stay a revocation action while a parallel EPO opposition proceeding takes place provides another indication of the court’s fast pace

When the Unified Patent Court (UPC) started operating on June 1 2023, future users of the court and patent practitioners awaited with interest how the court would apply rules 295(a) and 298 of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure (RoP). The rules lay down that the court may stay proceedings relating to a patent that is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO where a decision in such proceedings may be expected to be given rapidly.

The Court of Appeal of the UPC has now provided a first indication of its future practice in this respect. In case CoA_22/2024, the Court of Appeal confirmed a decision of the Court of First Instance not to stay a revocation action pending the outcome of parallel EPO opposition proceedings concerning the same patent.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings is not a sufficient reason to stay revocation proceedings before the UPC. The fact that the EPO proceedings were conducted at an accelerated pace was taken into account but not considered sufficient for the grant of stay.

The Court of First Instance subsequently decided on the merits of the case on July 29 2024 (case CFI_263/2023). Oral proceedings before the Opposition Division of the EPO (first instance) are scheduled for October 24 2024. The UPC revocation action and the EPO notice of opposition were filed on the same day, June 28 2023.

The case underlines that UPC proceedings run at a fast pace, and the UPC has sent a clear signal that parties should not expect a stay of proceedings on the mere ground that EPO opposition proceedings are in existence, even if such opposition proceedings are accelerated.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article