Rule 11 – Settlement
Content
1. At any stage of the proceedings, if the Court is of the opinion that the dispute is suitable for a
settlement, it may propose that the parties make use of the facilities of the Patent Mediation and
Arbitration Centre (“the Centre”) in order to settle or to explore a settlement of the dispute. In particular,
the judge-rapporteur shall during the interim procedure, especially at an interim conference in
accordance with Rule 104(d), explore with the parties the possibility of a settlement, including through
mediation and/or arbitration, using the facilities of the Centre. Parties who choose mediation in an
attempt to settle a dispute are subsequently not prevented from initiating judicial proceedings before the
Court in relation to that dispute by the expiry of limitation or prescription periods during the mediation
process, which will stay the limitation or prescription periods until the end of the mediation process. If
mediation proceedings are terminated without a dispute settlement agreement, the period shall continue
to run from that moment.
2. Pursuant to Rule 365 the Court shall, if requested by the parties, by decision confirm the terms of any
settlement or arbitral award by consent (irrespective of whether it was reached using the facilities of the
Centre or otherwise), including a term which obliges the patent owner to limit, surrender or agree to the
revocation of a patent or not to assert it against the other party and/or third parties. The parties may agree
on costs to be awarded or may request the Court to decide on costs to be awarded in accordance with
Rules 150 to 156 mutatis mutandis.
3. Save for the purpose of enforcing the terms of any such settlement agreement by any person no
opinion expressed, suggestion made, proposal put forward, concession made or document drawn up for
the purposes of settlement may be relied on as evidence by the Court or the parties in proceedings before
the Court or any other court unless such matter was expressed to be made on an open basis and freely
disclosable to the Court or any other court.
Relation with Agreement: Articles 35, 52(2) and 79
Related Cases
- UPC_CFI_771/2024 – Pirelli v Kingtyre
- UPC_CoA_629/2024, UPC_CoA_631/2024, UPC_CoA_632/2024 – Avago v Tesla
- UPC_CoA_689/2024, 690/2024 – Magna v Valeo
- UPC_CFI_166/2024 – Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc. v Celltrion Inc.
- UPC CFI 166/2024 (ACT 18551/2024) – Novartis AG and Genentech, Inc. v Celltrion Inc.
- UPC CFI 165/2024 – Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc. v Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. et al.