Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 DECEMBER 2024

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

LD Paris, December 19, 2024, Order, UPC_CFI_358/2023

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The Court rejected Claimant's request for a stay of enforcement of its first instance decision during the appeal period as this decision is solely subject to the competence of the Court of Appeal according to Art.

FranceLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

1. Key takeaways

No Stay of Execution from the Court of First Instance

The Court rejected Claimant's request for a stay of enforcement of its first instance decision during the appeal period as this decision is solely subject to the competence of the Court of Appeal according to Art. 74 UPCA and Rule 223 RoP. In such a scenario, the Court of First Instance has no power to suspend the decision during the appeal period.

Confidentiality Club

The Court upheld the confidentiality club as ordered previously and did not modify the order as the parties did not agree on the modification of the confidentiality club subsequently.

The Court referred to Rule 262A RoP, which governs confidentiality clubs, and to previous case law (LD Paris, March 26, 2024, UPC_CFI_397/2023; LD The Hague, March 4, 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023) to support its decision.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from