Case Law
Rule 104: Aim of the interim conference
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 30/04/2025, Insulet Corporation v. EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (Case/ Registry number: APL_64374/2024, ORD_69078/2024)
Example of decision on court’s independent claim construction without deferring to experts: "The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently.
[…] The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. The decisive factor is not the individual knowledge and abilities of a person, but rather the general specialist knowledge that is customary in the relevant field of technology, as well as the average knowledge, experience, and abilities in this specialist field. It is for the Court, not the expert, to assess these circumstances."
Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 22/01/2025, FUJIFILM Corporation v. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH (Case/ Registry number: ACT_579338/2023, ORD_598567/2023)
Example of a decision on the submission of provisional cost estimates: "The parties are requested to submit a provisional estimate of the costs of the dispute that they intend to claim (R. 104(k) RoP)."
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 23/12/2024, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (Case/ Registry number: APL_67135/2024, ORD_67910/2024)
Example of decision on determination of the value of the action: "The impugned order does not adversely affect Microsoft and does not require further clarification of the scope and limits of the court’s powers. The determination of the value of the action will be the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur during the interim procedure, pursuant to R 22, 104 and 370.6 RoP, as already explained by the CFI (impugned order, paragraph 6). In doing so, the judgerapporteur shall take into account the value as assessed by the parties, pursuant to R 22 RoP, and his assessment of the value shall reflect “the objective interest pursued by the filing party at the time of filing the action” (R 370.6 RoP)."
Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division, Order dated 17/09/2024, *** v. OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV (Case/ Registry number: ACT_581538/2023, ORD_598476/2023)
Example of decision on the use of notes and visual representations during oral proceedings: "Any pleading notes and/or visual representations (including in the form of a PPT presentation) as (pleading) aids will be admitted. However, these do not form part of the written argumentation (claim/defence). Indicated (pleading) aids can only serve to support the already formulated written argumentation. After all, the written phase of the proceedings has been concluded so that no additional/dissenting pleas can be submitted. Pleas must be communicated in good time (i.e. 48 hours before the hearing) to the Registry (LD Brussels) and the other party."
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division - Section, Order dated 31/01/2024, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited/ President and Fellows of Harvard College (ORD_598209/2023)
Example of decision on the value of the proceedings: “In order for the parties and the Court to assess whether costs incurred are indeed reasonable and proportionate and whether or not equity requires otherwise, the Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred.
To this end, the Court will allow the filing of additional exhibits relating to costs until two weeks prior to the hearing (3 April 2024) for all costs incurred until that date. This submission may be updated by a further submission to be lodged at the latest noon CET on the day before the hearing (16 April 2024). The last submission may include an estimate of costs incurred for the hearing itself.”