1. Key takeaways
R.9.1 RoP cannot be interpreted as giving the parties the right to file motions on their own initiative.
According to R. 9.1 RoP, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, of its own motion or on a reasoned request by a party, make a procedural order such as to order a party to take any step, answer any question or provide any clarification or evidence. However, it follows from R. 36 RoP that an additional submission by a party requires a reasoned application and admission by the judge.
The request for a discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.4 RoP is a request within the meaning of R.9.1 RoP
The pleadings provided for in R. 220.4 RoP are a request and, if the standing judge hears the other party, a reply. Any further submissions must be explicitly admitted by the standing judge.
2. Division
Luxemburg Court of Appeals
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_469/2024
App_47039/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Application pursuant to R.9.1 RoP
5. Parties
Respondents and Claimants in the main proceedings:
- DISH Technologies L.L.C., Englewood, USA
- Sling TV L.L.C., Englewood, USA
Appellants and Defendants in the main proceeding:
- AYLO FREESITES LTD, Nikosia, Zypern
- AYLO PREMIUM LTD, Nikosia, Zypern
- AYLO Billing Limited, Dublin, Irland
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 479 680
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 36 RoP; R. 9.1 RoP; R. 220.4 RoP
To view the full article, click here.
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.
