ORD_48962/2024 | EP3320604B1 | UPC Decision Search

	Type Order Decision	Reference	Court Division Brüssel Brussels Copenhagen Den Haag Düsseldorf Hamburg Helsinki Lisbon Lissabon Luxembourg Luxemburg Mailand Mannheim Milan München Munich Nordic Baltic Regional Division Paris The Hague Vienna			Tags
2 September, 2024	Order	ORD_48962/2024	Düsseldorf (DE) Loca…	EP3320604B1	R. 9(1) RoP ...	Please log in to add tags.	Please log in to add notes. Please log in to add tags. Show on UPC ORD_48962/2024 2 September, 2024 Order Summary (AI generated) Parties Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG Registry Information Registry Number: App_48579/2024 Court Division: Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division Type of Action: Generic application Language of Proceedings: EN Patent at issue EP3320604B1 Sections Keywords (EN) no reallocation of a TQJ Cited Legal Standards Art. 20(2) UPCA R 185.2 RoP R. 33.3 RoP R. 9(1) RoP Documents Download Order (EN) Add a custom note or summary to this decision Styles Text Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3 Bold ⌘B Italic ⌘I Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S Bullet list Ordered list Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B Insert link ⌘K Insert link Unlink Align Left Center Right No. ACT_39183/2024 UPC_CFI_368/2024 App_48679/2024 ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, with the same address, Represented by: Attorney-at-law Felix Rödiger, Attorney-at-law Jonas Smeets, Attorney-atlaw Fabian Saupe, Carl-Theodor-Straße 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, Electronic address for service: felix.roediger@twobirds.com Contributing European patent attorneys: Nicolas Cardon, Amandine Ricard, Pierre Prigent, Valeo Electrification, Cergy, DEFENDANTS: (in the main proceedings, and applicant in the procedural application) Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Herrmann-Hagenmeyer-Str. 1, 74199 Untergruppenbach, Ger-many, represented by its general partner, Magna PT Management B.V., with the same address, which is jointly represented by the managing directors Thomas Klett and Sandro Gildo Morandini, with the same address, Magna PT s.r.o., Perinska cesta 282, Kechnec 044 58, Slovakia, represented by its managing directors Martin Hluchý und Katarína Vaškovi č ová, with the same address, Magna International France, SARL, 4 route de Gisy Bâtiment 26, Biévres 91570, France, represented by its managing directors Thierry Servouse and Franz Trummer, with the same ad-dress, All Defendants represented by: Attorney-at-law Klaus Haft, Attorney-at-law Sabine Agé, Attorney-at-law Sebastian Kratzer, Hoyng, ROKH, Monegier, Steinstraße 20, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, Collaboratoring attorney: Attorney-at-law Dr Wolfgang Kellenter, Hengeler Müller, Benrather Straße 18-20, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, 2 Collaboratoring European Patent attorney: European Patent Attorney Jan Ackermann, Cohausz & Florack, Bleichstraße 14, 40211 Düsseldorf, Germany, PROCEDURE On 3 July 2024, VALEO filed an application for provisional measures against MAGNA entities (based on EP 3 320 604 B1). By generic procedural application dated 26 August 2024, MAGNA entities - referring to R. 9(1) RoP - request for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge and to allocate a technically qualified judge with experience in the field of mechanical engineering. By procedural order issued on the same day of the request (ORD_48679/2024), Presiding judge Thomas acting as judge rapporteur ordered that the request be forwarded to the President of the Court of First Instance for further consideration. By email dated 26 August 2024, the request and the related procedural order have been forwarded by the Presiding Judge acting as judge-rapporteur to the President of the Court of First Instance of the UPC pursuant R. 33.3 RoP in conjunction with Art. 18(3), Art. 20(2) UPCA). Following a preliminary order dated of 27 August 2024, VALEO (respondent to the request) submitted on 30 August 2024 his written observations on the request to review the allocation of the technically qualified judge (TQJ). The respondent rejects the Applicant's request arguing that a replacement of the TQJ should be legally inadmissible as the parties may not be removed from their lawfully appointed judge (in German: ' Recht auf den gesetz-lich bestimmten Richter '), and that there is also no reason to doubt the technical expertise of allocated TQJ. ORDER The technically qualified judge is one of the judges of the panel as defined in Articles 19 and 20 UPCA (concerning the Court of First Instance) and the legal texts governing the UPC do not provide the opportunity for the parties to ' make suggestion regarding (…) the technical or other relevant background ' of one of the judges allocated to the panel, unlike in the case of the appointment of a court expert (R 185.2 RoP). The only ground on which a party may object to a judge taking part in the proceedings is provided for by the provisions of the Article 7.4 UPCA relating to partiality. For these reasons, MAGNA's application for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge in order to allocate another technically qualified judge with experience in the field of mechanical engineering is dismissed. Issued on 2 September 2024 NAME AND SIGNATURE On behalf of The President of the UPC Court of First Instance Camille Lignieres (Deputy President of CFI)

ORD_48962/2024

No. ACT_39183/2024 UPC_CFI_368/2024 App_48679/2024

ORDER

Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024

APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application)

Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, with the same address,

Represented by: Attorney-at-law Felix Rödiger, Attorney-at-law Jonas Smeets, Attorney-atlaw Fabian Saupe, Carl-Theodor-Straße 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany,

Electronic address for service: felix.roediger@twobirds.com

Contributing European patent attorneys: Nicolas Cardon, Amandine Ricard, Pierre Prigent, Valeo Electrification, Cergy,

DEFENDANTS: (in the main proceedings, and applicant in the procedural application)

1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Herrmann-Hagenmeyer-Str. 1, 74199 Untergruppenbach, Ger-many, represented by its general partner, Magna PT Management B.V., with the same address, which is jointly represented by the managing directors Thomas Klett and Sandro Gildo Morandini, with the same address,
1. Magna PT s.r.o., Perinska cesta 282, Kechnec 044 58, Slovakia, represented by its managing directors Martin Hluchý und Katarína Vaškovi č ová, with the same address,
1. Magna International France, SARL, 4 route de Gisy Bâtiment 26, Biévres 91570, France, represented by its managing directors Thierry Servouse and Franz Trummer, with the same ad-dress,

All Defendants represented by: Attorney-at-law Klaus Haft, Attorney-at-law Sabine Agé, Attorney-at-law Sebastian Kratzer, Hoyng, ROKH, Monegier, Steinstraße 20, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany,

Collaboratoring attorney: Attorney-at-law Dr Wolfgang Kellenter, Hengeler Müller, Benrather Straße 18-20, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, 2

Collaboratoring European Patent attorney: European Patent Attorney Jan Ackermann, Cohausz & Florack, Bleichstraße 14, 40211 Düsseldorf, Germany,

PROCEDURE

On 3 July 2024, VALEO filed an application for provisional measures against MAGNA entities (based on EP 3 320 604 B1).

By generic procedural application dated 26 August 2024, MAGNA entities - referring to R. 9(1) RoP - request for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge and to allocate a technically qualified judge with experience in the field of mechanical engineering.

By procedural order issued on the same day of the request (ORD_48679/2024), Presiding judge Thomas acting as judge rapporteur ordered that the request be forwarded to the President of the Court of First Instance for further consideration.

By email dated 26 August 2024, the request and the related procedural order have been forwarded by the Presiding Judge acting as judge-rapporteur to the President of the Court of First Instance of the UPC pursuant R. 33.3 RoP in conjunction with Art. 18(3), Art. 20(2) UPCA).

Following a preliminary order dated of 27 August 2024, VALEO (respondent to the request) submitted on 30 August 2024 his written observations on the request to review the allocation of the technically qualified judge (TQJ).

The respondent rejects the Applicant's request arguing that a replacement of the TQJ should be legally inadmissible as the parties may not be removed from their lawfully appointed judge (in German: ' Recht auf den gesetz-lich bestimmten Richter '), and that there is also no reason to doubt the technical expertise of allocated TQJ.

ORDER

The technically qualified judge is one of the judges of the panel as defined in Articles 19 and 20 UPCA (concerning the Court of First Instance) and the legal texts governing the UPC do not provide the opportunity for the parties to ' make suggestion regarding (…) the technical or other relevant background ' of one of the judges allocated to the panel, unlike in the case of the appointment of a court expert (R 185.2 RoP). The only ground on which a party may object to a judge taking part in the proceedings is provided for by the provisions of the Article 7.4 UPCA relating to partiality.

For these reasons, MAGNA's application for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge in order to allocate another technically qualified judge with experience in the field of mechanical engineering is dismissed.

Issued on 2 September 2024

NAME AND SIGNATURE

On behalf of The President of the UPC Court of First Instance Camille Lignieres (Deputy President of CFI)