A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of the UPC has held that the UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in line with EU law, but that the UPC cannot request the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure of the UPC (RoP). The Court also concluded that the one-month time limit in Rule 151 RoP is in accordance with EU law.
Background
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had brought proceedings before the Dusseldorf Local Division against expert klein Gmbh and expert e-Commerce Gmbh for infringement of the European patent, EP 3 223 320 B1. In response, expert klein Gmbh launched a counter claim for revocation. The Local Division found that the patent was invalid and so the patent was revoked. Viosys was ordered to pay costs.
Two months later, expert applied for a cost decision for the infringement proceedings and counter claim for revocation. Viosys objected that the application for a cost decision had been filed after the expiry of the one-month time limit set out in R. 151 RoP. The Local Division agreed that the application was inadmissible and so dismissed the application. Consequently, expert requested that the Court of Appeal grant leave to appeal and refer questions regarding the interpretation of Rule 151 RoP to the CJEU.
Overview
In summary, the Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal because they held that the one-month time limit in Rule 151 RoP was in line with EU law. In addition, the Court considered that the UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in line with EU law, but the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or RoP. Accordingly, the Court did not refer expert’s questions to the CJEU.
First, the Court considered that the UPC should follow EU law in its entirety and recognise that it takes precedence. This is because the UPC is a court common to participating EU member states and so it must follow the same obligations under EU law as any national court of a contracting state. In particular, the Court concluded that the EU legislation referred to in the UPCA and RoP is not exhaustive and therefore, an interpretation of EU law when applying the UPCA and/or RoP can arise whether the UPCA and/or RoP references EU law or not. As a result, the UPC should interpret its own substantive and procedural law in accordance with EU law. Moreover, the Court held that where any rule or practice is contrary to a provision of EU law, the UPC must of its own motion disapply such rule or practice with direct effect.
Second, the Court considered that the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA. This is because the UPCA is an international agreement and therefore forms part of international law. In other words, the UPCA is not an act of the EU. In addition, the Court considered that the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the Rules of Procedure of the UPC because the RoP are procedural rules that can be equated with national procedural law as opposed to EU law.
Thirdly, the Court held that expert’s questions could not be referred to the CJEU because the CJEU has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling where the legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law. In other words, a request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law, as opposed to the application of the RoP for example.
Finally, the Court concluded that the one-month time limit for applying for a cost decision is not complicated and evidently does not unfairly affect the party’s right to effective judicial protection. Therefore, the time limit was not considered to violate EU law.
Key takeaways
This case highlights that the UPC must interpret its law in line with EU law but that the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the law of the UPC. Moreover, it is yet another case demonstrating that the UPC intends to stick to its short and strict procedural timelines.
Meet our UPC team.
