Post by rajiyakhatun406 on Feb 12, 2024 7:25:50 GMT 1
The substantiation of a lawsuit in Spain for infringement of a European patent, in which the defendant makes a counterclaim for invalidity, is affected by the parallel processing of an opposition procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO). ADVERTISING The European patent is granted by the EPO in a modified version of it that is presented in the course of the opposition procedure. The appeal before the EPO Appeals Chamber is pending at the time the appeal against the sentence handed down in the lawsuit in Spain is being heard. The appellant in appeal formally requests before the Provincial Court the suspension of the appeal given the reality that the final decision of the EPO will occur imminently and will render the lawsuit in Spain without purpose.
The court upholds the request for suspension due to administrative prejudicial proceedings by Huawei as long as the resolution of the Appeals Chamber of the European Ecuador Email List Patent Office in relation to the appeals filed by the parties against the decision of the Oppositions Division of the same body is not recorded. which declares the nullity of the EP778 patent. Pronouncements The Judgment recognizes that to resolve the conflict it is necessary to start from the wording of article 42 of the Civil Procedure Law , which seems to opt for non-suspensive of administrative issues that affect a lawsuit.
However, the court warns that the wording of the provision is confusing since, on the one hand, it allows the courts to hear matters relating to other jurisdictional orders if they consider it appropriate (section 1) or not, it is an option that is left in the hands of the court, but despite this possibility it seems to leave the decision to suspend the course of the procedure in the hands of the parties (section 3). For the court, the possibility of raising a preliminary question suspending the process must be deduced, contrary sensu , from the provisions of the first section of the indicated rule, which establishes the possibility that the civil courts will not suspend and hear the contentious issue. -administrative, for simple prejudicial purposes.
The court upholds the request for suspension due to administrative prejudicial proceedings by Huawei as long as the resolution of the Appeals Chamber of the European Ecuador Email List Patent Office in relation to the appeals filed by the parties against the decision of the Oppositions Division of the same body is not recorded. which declares the nullity of the EP778 patent. Pronouncements The Judgment recognizes that to resolve the conflict it is necessary to start from the wording of article 42 of the Civil Procedure Law , which seems to opt for non-suspensive of administrative issues that affect a lawsuit.
However, the court warns that the wording of the provision is confusing since, on the one hand, it allows the courts to hear matters relating to other jurisdictional orders if they consider it appropriate (section 1) or not, it is an option that is left in the hands of the court, but despite this possibility it seems to leave the decision to suspend the course of the procedure in the hands of the parties (section 3). For the court, the possibility of raising a preliminary question suspending the process must be deduced, contrary sensu , from the provisions of the first section of the indicated rule, which establishes the possibility that the civil courts will not suspend and hear the contentious issue. -administrative, for simple prejudicial purposes.