Executive Summary
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a purely procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a first-instance order. The appellant, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., challenged the lack of explicit authorization to appeal. The court ruled that under Rule 220.2 RdP, such authorization must be expressly granted by the Tribunal; general references are not enough.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
For an appeal against a procedural order (outside of simultaneous decision appeals), express authorization from the Tribunal is mandatory under Rule 220.2 RdP; mere reference to the possibility of appeal in general terms is insufficient to confer such authority.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Photon Wave Co., Ltd vs Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Genentech Inc.vsF. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In this significant pharmaceutical dispute, Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sought urgent procedural measures against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. The UPC Local Division granted both an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning the patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers the cancer medicine Perjeta®. This decision is a critical step in securing necessary data for the ongoing litigation regarding biosimilar launch (HLX11).
Seoul Viosys Co., LtdvsLaser Components SAS
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to change the language of proceedings from French to English. Although the patent in question (EP3404726) was granted in English, the Court found that there were insufficient grounds based on convenience or equity to mandate this change. The decision reinforces the procedural flexibility and the importance of respecting the initial filing choice made by parties in UPC litigation.
DISH Technologies L.L.C.vsAYLO PREMIUM LTD
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a challenge by AYLO PREMIUM LTD against a confidentiality order established under UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 262A VerfO). The dispute centered on whether three individuals named by the claimants should be excluded from accessing confidential information related to the patent infringement case. The court upheld the original order, finding that the respondent did not provide sufficient justification to restrict access, thereby reinforcing the principle of unrestricted access to the core dispute material.
Amgen Inc.vsSanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Amgen Inc.'s infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding EP3666797 (covering Praluent/Alirocumab) was stayed by the UPC Local Division Munich. This stay followed a prior Central Division decision that had revoked the patent in its entirety, which is now subject to appeal. The parties agreed to halt the infringement proceedings until the validity challenge reaches a final resolution.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Inc. et al.
In a significant procedural ruling concerning trade secrets, the UPC Local Court in Munich addressed requests for confidentiality related to litigation documents. The court consolidated and confirmed an order protecting specific information submitted by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi and its affiliates. This decision is crucial for practitioners as it sets clear boundaries on how sensitive business information can be handled during complex cross-border patent disputes.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.