Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

Rule 37Application of Article 33(3) of the Agreement

1. As soon as practicable after the closure of the written procedure the panel shall decide by way of order how to proceed with respect to the application of Article 33(3) [1] of the Agreement. The parties shall be given an opportunity to be heard [Rule 264] [2]. The panel shall set out in its order brief reasons for its decision.

2. The Panel may by order take an earlier decision if appropriate having considered the parties’ pleadings and having given the parties an opportunity to be heard [Rule 264] [3].

3. Where the panel decides to proceed in accordance with Article 33(3)(a) [4] of the Agreement, the judge-rapporteur shall request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate to the panel a technically qualified judge if not already allocated pursuant to Rules 33 [[-
1. Any party to the proceedings may lodge an Application for allocating a technically qualified judge to the panel which shall contain an indication of the relevant field of technology.
2. The Application shall be lodged as early as possible in the written procedure. An Application lodged after the closure of the written procedure [Rule 35] shall only be granted i
...
Please login to continue reading.


Registering with the site

You have requested to take part in a forum reserved for registered visitors.

Personal identifiers

Enter your personal information here. You will receive a registration confirmation shortly by email. Such email may have been considered as spam. If you do not find it in your inbox nor in your spam, please send an email to contact@upc-casalonga.eu.

(Your password must contain at least 6 characters.)

Required fields are indicated with a « * »


New visitor ?

Subscribe


[1-
(3) A counterclaim for revocation as referred to in Article 32(1)(e) may be brought in the case of an action for infringement as referred to in Article 32(1)(a). The local or regional division concerned shall, after having heard the parties, have the discretion either to:
(a) proceed with both the action for infringement and with the counterclaim for revocation and request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3) a technically qualified judge with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned.
(b) refer the counterclaim for revocation for decision to the central division and suspend or proceed with the action for infringement; or
(c) with the agreement of the parties, refer the case for decision to the central division.

[2-
Where these Rules provide that a party shall or may be given an opportunity to be heard before the Court makes an order or takes some action, the Court shall or may (as the case may be) request the parties to provide written submissions within a specified period and/or shall or may invite the parties to an oral hearing on a fixed date by the Court. The Court may also order that a hearing takes place by telephone or video conference. Rules 105 and 106 shall apply -.

[3-
Where these Rules provide that a party shall or may be given an opportunity to be heard before the Court makes an order or takes some action, the Court shall or may (as the case may be) request the parties to provide written submissions within a specified period and/or shall or may invite the parties to an oral hearing on a fixed date by the Court. The Court may also order that a hearing takes place by telephone or video conference. Rules 105 and 106 shall apply -.

[4-
(3) A counterclaim for revocation as referred to in Article 32(1)(e) may be brought in the case of an action for infringement as referred to in Article 32(1)(a). The local or regional division concerned shall, after having heard the parties, have the discretion either to:
(a) proceed with both the action for infringement and with the counterclaim for revocation and request the President of the Court of First Instance to allocate from the Pool of Judges in accordance with Article 18(3) a technically qualified judge with qualifications and experience in the field of technology concerned.