Request to stay the proceedings rejected (Rule 295 RoP).
Neither the fact that a Preliminary Objection has been lodged nor the likelihood of success of the appeal against the rejection of the Preliminary Objection are relevant factors for deciding whether the proceedings should be stayed.
No rapid decision is expected from the EPO (Article 33(10) UPCA, Rule 295(a) RoP). In the current case, the date for the EPO opposition hearings has not even been set and is still unclear when the EPO will issue a decision.
Claimant’s interest to continue the proceedings outweighs Defendant’s interest to stay the proceedings:
(a) Defendant’s interest to (potentially) save litigation costs does not weigh up to the legitimate interest of Claimant in pursuing this revocation action;
(b) The balancing of interests also strikes in favour of plaintiff because the patent expires on 27 January 2025;
(c) The fact that there is a danger of differing results between the UPCA proceedings and in the EPO proceedings does not lead to a different result.
