Case Law
Article 48: Representation
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 18/03/2025, Sun Patent Trust v. Roku International B.V., Roku, Inc. (Case/ Registry number: App_47532/2024, ORD_69037/2024)
Example of decision on representative authority confirming that a claimant need not evidence the UPC representative’s mandate for an opt-out withdrawal unless the defendant contests it: "To the extent that the defendants criticise the fact that the statement of claim and the CMS lack any evidence that Mr Vigand was duly authorised, they do not prevail. According to Rule 5.3 (b) (i) RP, if a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 (1), (2) UPCA declares withdrawal from the exception invoked, proof of authorisation is not required. This requirement exists pursuant to Art. 14 Rule 5.3 (b) (ii) RP only for other persons."
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 03/03/2025, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (Case/ Registry number: ACT_18406/2024, ORD_8385/2025)
Example of decision on no corporate representative with extensive administrative and financial powers may serve as representative of the legal person: "By the aforementioned order of 11 February 2025, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal filed by the Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against the order of this Court declaring their application for confidentiality protection, stating that “No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person, may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA”. Hence, they agreed with the impugned order that *** enjoyed extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and, as such, he was not in the position to represent the company."
Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 11/02/2025, Suinno Mobile & AI Tech. Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corp. (Case/ Registry number: APL_53716/2024, ORD_68946/2024)
Example of a decision on the independence of the representative: "If the party is a natural person, the representation requirement under Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA implies that this person is not entitled to represent him or herself, regardless of whether the person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA. This understanding is based on the term “representation” used in Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA and the concept of rights and immunities of representatives outlined in Art. 48(5) and (6) UPCA and R. 287 to 292 RoP. 21.
If the party is a legal person, the same principle applies. As neither Art. 48 UPCA nor Part 5, Chapter 3 of the UPC Rules of Procedure distinguish between natural or legal persons regarding representation before the UPC, the UPC representative of a party that is a legal person must be as distant from the party as it would be if the party were a natural person. 22. It follows that no corporate representative of a legal person, or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, - whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person - may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA.
23. This interpretation of the term “represented” under Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA and “representatives” in Art. 48(5) and (6) UPCA aligns with the interpretation of Art. 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU Statute) by the CJEU."