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 2026

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

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article