Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 DECEMBER 2024

Flexibility At The UPC Enables Hard Copy Intervention Filing

Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk
Contributor
Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk LLP was founded in 1887 by George Croydon Marks, who was joined in partnership by...

View firm profile
Explore more from Marks & Clerk

The UPC demonstrated flexibility by accepting a hard copy intervention filing due to CMS limitations, emphasizing discretion in procedural challenges. Despite admissibility, the intervention was dismissed for late filing.

United KingdomIntellectual Property

The UPC has continued to show flexibility with its approach to the CMS, with a Panel exercising its discretion to allow the filing of a hard copy of an intervention. The UPC Rules of Procedure state that written pleadings and other documents must be lodged in electronic form (Rule 4.1). Where it is not possible to do so due to an issue with the CMS, a hard copy document may be lodged with an electronic copy then lodged as soon as practicable after (Rule 4.2).

In an Order dated 1 October 2024 (in the matter of Insulet v EOFlow, UPC_CFI_380/2024), the Panel in the Central Division, Milan ruled the hard copy filing of an application to intervene to be admissible. Pharmaceutical company Menarini had filed an application to intervene in the infringement proceedings where its distributor EOFlow was the defendant. The claimant, Insulet, questioned the admissibility of the intervention as the document was not filed electronically, as required by the Rules of Procedure. The

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