Casalonga UPC rules of procedure
Powered by Casalonga

Rule 29AContents of the Defence to the Counterclaim

The Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation shall contain:

(a) an indication of the facts relied on, including any challenge to the facts relied on by the defendant;

(b) the evidence relied on [Rule 170.1] [1], where available, and an indication of any further evidence which will be offered in support;

(c) the reasons why the Counterclaim for revocation shall fail, including arguments of law and any argument as to why any dependent claim of the patent is independently valid;

(d) an indication of any order the claimant and the proprietor will seek in respect of the revocation action at the interim conference [Rule 104(e)] [2];

(e) the claimant’s and the proprietor’s response to the defendant’s choice of option, if any, provided for in Article 33(3) [3] of the Agreement and Rule 37.4 [4]; and
...
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-
1. In proceedings before the Court, the means of evidence shall include in particular the following:
(a) written evidence, whether printed, hand-written or drawn, in particular documents, written witness statements, plans, drawings, photographs;
(b) expert reports and reports on experiments carried out for the purpose of the proceedings;
(c) physical objects, in particular devices, products, embodiments, exhibits, models;
(d) electronic files and audio/video recordings.

[2-
(e) where appropriate, issue orders regarding production of further pleadings, documents, experts (including court experts), experiments, inspections, further written evidence, the matters to be the subject of oral evidence and the scope of questions to be put to the witnesses;

[3-
(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:

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.

[4-
4. Where the panel decides to proceed in accordance with Article 33(3)(b) of the Agreement, the panel may stay the infringement proceedings pending a final decision in the revocation proceedings and shall stay the infringement proceedings where there is a high likelihood that the relevant claims of the patent will be held to be invalid on any ground by the final decision in the revocation proceedings.