{"id":470,"date":"2024-05-10T12:14:50","date_gmt":"2024-05-10T12:14:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=470"},"modified":"2024-05-10T12:14:50","modified_gmt":"2024-05-10T12:14:50","slug":"upcs-paris-central-division-standstill-clause-goes-to-admissibility-of-revocation-claim-not-to-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/upcs-paris-central-division-standstill-clause-goes-to-admissibility-of-revocation-claim-not-to-jurisdiction\/","title":{"rendered":"UPC’s Paris Central Division: standstill clause goes to admissibility of revocation claim, not to jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> The Unified Patent Court (UPC) publishes orders at all stages of proceeding, and ip fray<\/strong> aims to keep the patent litigation community informed of key decisions by the UPC (see, e.g.,<\/em> the May 6, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a> on a decision by the Paris Local Division (LD) on nullity counterclaims by an intervenor or the May 7, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a> on the Mannheim LD’s order to sever claims against ex-EU defendants) as well as U.S. courts (see, e.g.,<\/em> the May 7, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a> on a $1 million “bounty” for suing a licensee’s rivals or the May 8, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a> on the Federal Circuit’s latest decision on the U.S. International Commission’s domestic industry requirement).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s new:<\/strong> The UPC’s Paris Central Division (CD) today published an order denying a preliminary objection against a revocation objection that argued the court lacked jurisdiction (PDF<\/a>). The key holding is that standstill clauses (here, as part of a non-disclosure agreement) with notice periods and similar restrictions go to the potential inadmissibility of a claim, which the parties can argue further down the road, rather than the court’s jurisdiction. The order also indicates, however, that standstill agreements will not be interpreted too restrictively by the Paris CD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact:<\/strong> There is a possibility of the Paris CD’s decision becoming UPC-wide practice, but it remains to be seen, as other UPC divisions may prefer to dispose of barred claims at the earliest stage of proceeding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wider ramifications:<\/strong> The final part of the decision explains that some other arguments raised by the parties would have warranted clarification, but the court prefers to do so at a later stage, based on more evidence, as it didn’t have to reach those questions yet.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What makes the order more difficult (or potentially confusing) to read than necessary are three factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n