UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024 (Order 13 Oct) – Ona v Google
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Request for an interim conference Facts 1. On 28 August 2025, the JR ordered the parties to the oral hearing on 29 October 2025, and indicated that the JR had no intention to hold an interim conference. 2. The claimant requested a review of this order, stating it wanted an interim conference to discuss related proceedings against other defendants and referred to a letter of 1 September filed outside CMS and outside the time periods set by the Rules of Procedure. 3. The defendants stated that such interim conference is not necessary. The Court 1. The Court dismissed the request, stating that the President acting for the JR (assuming there was a final decision not to hold an interim conference) did not misuse its discretionary powers, which was also not alleged. The claimant just wants a different decision. 2. The other proceedings are independent from the present proceedings, meaning that only the statements with respect to certain prior art documents in these proceedings are relevant. Comment 1. Although in general an interim conference can be useful, in this case it is the claimant who apparently tried to get new facts and arguments in the proceedings by letter of 1 September outside the proceedings (not filed in the CMS and not provided for in the Rules). 2. If you file multiple proceedings against different defendants about the same infringement, and you want to improve your position after the closure of the written proceedings with information or lessons learned in other proceedings, then that is not possible because of the front loaded character of UPC proceedings. This should be a lesson for representatives!
Full Decision Text
Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_100/2024 UPC_CFI_411/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance issued on 13 October 2025 concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 CLAIMANT: Ona Patents SL, represented by its Managing Director Raúl Diaz Morales, Carrer de Calàbria 149 En. 1, 08015 Barcelona, Spain, represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Ben- edikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augen- stein, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Bubendorfer, Patent Attorney M. Sc. Andreas Rauscher, WBH Wachenhausen Patentanwälte PartGmbB, Müllerstraße 40, 80469 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com COUNTER-DEFENDANT 2: Ekahau Oy, represented by the Board of Directors Jeremy Rossen, Brian Conrad Stewart und Ari Olavi Tourunen, Jaakonkatu 5, 00100, Helsinki, Finland represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Ben- edikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augen- stein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Bubendorfer, Patent Attorney M. Sc. Andreas Rauscher, WBH Wachenhausen Patentanwälte PartGmbB, Müllerstraße 40, 80469 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com DEFENDANTS: 1. Google Ireland Limited, represented by its directors Elizabeth M. Cunningham, David M. Sned- don, Vanessa Hartley, Colin Goulding, Amanda Storey, Gordon House, Barrow Street 4, Dublin 4, D04 V4X7, Republic of Ireland 1 2. Google Commerce Limited, Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, D04 E5W5, Republic of Ireland represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Marcus Grosch, Attorney-at-law Dr Jesko Preuß, Attorney-at-law Dr Andreas Hahne, Quinn Emanuel, Her- mann-Sack-Straße 3, 80331 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: marcusgrosch@quinnemanuel.com PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° EP 2 263 098 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas, legally qualified Judge Dr Thom acting as judge- rapporteur, legally qualified judge Kokke and technically qualified judge Myon. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 333.1 RoP – Application for review case management order SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES: The Presiding Judge summoned the parties to the oral hearing on 29 October 2025 by Order of 28 August 2025 on behalf of the Judge-Rapporteur. According to Cif. 3 of this order, it was noted that there is currently no intention of the Judge-Rapporteur to hold an interim conference. The Claimant is seeking a review of the order regarding the holding an interim conference. It suggests scheduling an interim conference to discuss the relevance of arguments and findings from related proceedings against other Defendants which have been settled in the meantime and were originally scheduled for the same hearing date. Furthermore, the Claimant relies on its own brief of 1 September 2025 which was filed outside of any case management regime set by law and outside of any time periods set by the Court. The Defendants respond by arguing that the scope of the proceedings and the issues to be addressed in the oral hearing have not changed since 28 August 2025. The parallel proceedings against other Defendants are legally independent of the case at hand. References to the prior art documents D 12, D 13 and D 14 are still part of the present proceedings and are not dependent on the state of the parallel proceedings. Moreover, the Defendants objected to the admission of Claimant´s brief of 1 September 2025 and the admission of further auxiliary requests. The Claimant requests, to review the Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court dated 28 August 2025, case numbers UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024, App_35740/2025, 2 ORD_35740/2025, ORD_35741/2025 and hold an interim conference. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: Claimant´s request is admissible, but unfounded. 1. The present request for review is admissible as the requirements of Rules 333.2 and .3 RoP have been met. 2. However, the request is unfounded. First of all, there seems to be no scope for a review because the Order contains a declaration of intent and does not stipulate that there will be no interim conference. However, even if it is understood as a definitive decision not to hold an interim conference, the decision to hold or not to hold an interim conference lies at the discretion of the Presiding Judge, who acted on behalf of the Judge-Rapporteur after consulting her. In this respect, the Claimant is not even alleging any misuse of discretion, but instead seeks a different outcome. It is already questionable whether the Panel can make the order instead of the Judge-Rapporteur in this situation, because the suggestion to conduct an interim conference is based on alleged new circumstances. But even if the Panel can do so, the reason given by the Claimant are not convincing. a) The Defendants rightly point out that there is no need to discuss the relevance of arguments and findings from the related proceedings against other Defendants that were terminated by Decision of the Court dated 5 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_392/2024) in an interim conference. The terminated proceedings are legally independent of the present proceedings. Their termination does not have any effect on the case at hand. In addition to the purely formal aspect, the manner in which proceedings are conducted before the UPC also supports such independence. For instance, judge-rapporteurs and panel compositions may differ, as may confidentiality requests and orders based on them. For this reason, it is not possible only to 'appropriate' the presentation from parallel proceedings (in German: “sich Vortrag zu eigen machen”). That means with regard to the prior art documents D 12, D13 and D 14, only those arguments and statements are relevant which have been made in the case at hand. Some general references to the terminated proceedings are not taken into account. According to Defendants´ statement dated 18 September 2025, they agree to this understanding. b) Furthermore, the Defendants also rightly argue that there is no need to discuss the Claimant´s submission dated 1 September 2025 in an interim conference. This brief was filed outside of any case management regime given by the law and outside of any time periods set by the Court. The Defendants´ have already objected to the admission of new arguments and requests. The Claimant cannot force the Court to schedule an interim conference by filing additional briefs and claiming them as reason for further oral discussion. Finally, in case the judge-rapporteur would not disregard the content of the brief, it can still be discussed at the oral hearing. ORDER: The Claimant´s request is dismissed. 3 Issued in Düsseldorf on 13 October 2025 Ronny Digital unterschrieben Presiding Judge Thomas von Ronny Thomas Thomas Datum: 2025.10.13 10:18:37 +02'00' Anna Digital unterschrieben von Anna Bérénice Dr. Legally Qualified Judge Dr Thom Bérénice THOM Datum: 2025.10.13 Dr. THOM 10:49:52 +02'00' Margot Digitally signed by Margot Elsa Legally Qualified Judge Kokke Elsa KOKKE Date: 2025.10.13 KOKKE 11:18:01 +02'00' Signé numériquement par Gérard, Gérard, Jean Jean-Pierre Myon DN : cn=Gérard, Jean-Pierre Myon , c=FR -Pierre Myon Date : 2025.10.13 23:02:33 +02'00 ' Technically Qualified Judge Myon 4
Key Holdings
- Request for review of order refusing interim conference dismissed.
- No misuse of discretionary powers by JR found.
- Related proceedings against other defendants are independent.
Tags
- Case Management
- Front-loaded Proceedings
- Interim Measures
- Review