Unified Patent Court
Reference no.: APL_47300/2024
UPC_CoA_489/2024
Procedural order
of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 6 September 2024
APPLICANT (CLAIMANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800, 60654 Chicago, Illinois, United States
hereinafter: Motorola,
represented by attorneys-at-law Klaus Haft and Sven Krause and patent attorney Erik Lumens (Hoyng ROKH Monegier)
RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE)
- TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm, Sweden 2. ERICSSON GMBH
Prinzenallee 21, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany
hereinafter: Ericsson,
represented by attorney-at-law Dr. Christof Augenstein (Kather Augenstein)
PATENT AT ISSUE
EP 3342086
DECIDING JUDGE
Peter Blok, Legally qualified judge and standing judge
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Munich Local Division, dated 6 August 2024
Reference numbers:
- App_ 25265/2024
- ORD_27411/2024
- ACT_5326/2024
- UPC_CFI_42/2024
FACTS AND REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES
-
On 6 August 2024, the Munich Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued an order in the infringement proceedings brought by Motorola against Ericsson (hereinafter: the impugned order). In the impugned order, the Court of First Instance rejected Motorola’s request for leave to change its claim. The Court did not grant leave to appeal.
-
Motorola lodged a request for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (hereinafter: RoP). Motorola argues that the Court of Appeal should hear the case to clarify the standard of application of R. 263 RoP and provide guidance for parties and establish a reliable and uniform decision practice. It submits that the impugned order is incorrect and that it does not provide a detailed interpretation and subsumption that would allow a generalization of the decision.
-
Ericsson responded to Motorola’s request, arguing that the impugned order is correct and is a decision in an individual case that does not jeopardise the uniformity of the UPC’s case law.
GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
- Motorola failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP (point 8 of the Preambule of the RoP) or any other objective of the discretionary review procedure. Its contention that the impugned order is incorrect and does not provide a detailed interpretation and subsumption that would allow a generalization of the decision, is not sufficient.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
The request for discretionary review is rejected.
This order was issued on 6 September 2024.
Peter Blok, Standing judge