Rule 65: Examination as to formal requirements, recording in the register, assignment and designation of the judge-rapporteur

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas von Falck ◽  
Stephan Dorn
Keyword(s):  
Default Rule ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
In Suit ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Register Assignment

Pursuant to Rule 16.1 UPCARoP, the Registry first examines whether there is an opt-out for the patent in suit. If the patent proprietor declared an opt-out, the Registry immediately informs the claimant who must then change or withdraw the action. Pursuant to Rule 16.2, the Registry then checks whether the Statement of claim is formally complete. If there are any deficiencies, the Registry requests the claimant to correct the Statement of claim. The Registry must inform the claimant that a decision by default (Rule 355) is possible. If the claimant does not correct the deficiencies within 14 days or does not pay the fee for the action within said 14 days, the judge rapporteur dismisses the action by default (Rule 16.4). The claimant may, however, appeal the decision by default pursuant to Rule 356.

Rule 208 Examination as to formal requirements, recording in the register, assignment to panel, designation of judge-rapporteur, single judge

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas von Falck ◽  
Stephan Dorn
Keyword(s):  
Opt Out ◽  
Single Judge ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Register Assignment

An examination of the application by the Registry is necessary for a decision on an application for provisional measures. First, the Registry checks whether an opt-out has been declared for the patent at issue (Rule 16.1). If an opt-out has been declared, the Registry informs the applicant pursuant to Rule 16.1 and requests him to withdraw or to complete the application.

Examination as to formal requirements, recording in the register, assignment (Court of First Instance, revocation action) and designation of the judge-rapporteur

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Faehndrich ◽  
Alexander Klicznik ◽  
Max Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
Mutual Exchange ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Register Assignment

The notification also serves to ensure the exchange of information for any opposition proceedings that might still be pending before the EPO. In the context of administrative and legal cooperation pursuant to Art 131 EPC, the EPO has an obligation towards the courts and authorities of the Member States to provide information for the purpose of ensuring a mutual exchange of information. In this regard, Art 131 EPC merely refers to a request to communicate information, but the notification by the UPC may be understood by the EPO as a request within the meaning of Art 131 EPC. The EPO may then make a corresponding notification to the Court on the opposition proceedings pending with regard to the patent.

Examination as to formal requirements, recording in the register, assignment to panel, designation of judge-rapporteur, single judge

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Jürgen Ahrens
Keyword(s):  
Single Judge ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Register Assignment

Where main proceedings on the merits of the case have not yet been started before the Court, the Application for preserving evidence shall be dealt with in accordance with Rule 16 (formalities examination by Registry), Rule 17.1(a) to (c) and .2 (date of receipt, recording in the register, action number, assignment to panel) and Rule 18 (designation only of judge-rapporteur by presiding judge).

scholarly journals Materi dan Prosedur Penetapan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok, Studi Perbandingan: Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 346
Author(s):  
Laras Susanti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Court Process

Abstract. Background of this article is, although it was first emerged in Common Law system countries, the practice of class action has been growing in Indonesia. This mechanism brings an opportunity to simplified the court’ process and to reduce the risk of disparity judgements. This article found similarities and differences scope and procedure of certification in Indonesia and the USA. Before examining the case, a presiding judges, accordingly to Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2002 concerning Procedure of Class Action, have to determine whether the case is eligible to be examine as class action case. This procedure is universally well-known as certification mainly focuses on the fulfilment of class action’s substantive requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation and formal requirements. The similar requirements are also implemented in the USA accordingly to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 Class Action. However, in those countries have different procedure when it comes to legal remedy to the certification order, mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal, the role of judge in assisting poor litigants and determining counsel’s fee. This article recommends Indonesia has to amend the Supreme Court regulation to add provisions on legal remedy, and mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal. 

scholarly journals Non-frustration Rule and Mandatory Bid Rule – Cornerstones of European Takeover Law?

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Mathias Habersack
Keyword(s):  
Shareholder Activism ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Controlling Shareholder ◽  
Mandatory Bid ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Mandatory Bid Rule ◽  
A Company ◽  
Rule Making

With the non-frustration rule and the mandatory bid rule, the Takeover Bid Directive contains two principles which have strongly influenced British takeover law for approximately 50 years. However, the changes of the economic and legal framework of the market for corporate control which have occurred since the adoption of the Directive call into question the legitimacy of both principles. Although the non-frustration rule is capable of disciplining board members, it generates misguided incentives and is, at the most, suitable as a disciplining tool of last resort. The dominant idea of relying on increasing shareholder activism and of trusting the shareholders to discipline the board (also in a company with dispersed ownership) is compelling in principle; however, as active shareholders often seek the short-term maximisation of returns, misguided incentives cannot be avoided in this context either. In view of these findings, the article explores the ways of structuring NFR optionality. It submits that only the shareholders should be given the possibility to opt out of the strict NFR – which would continue to serve as the default rule and that such an opt out should only be possible for a limited period of time. With respect to the mandatory bid rule, its justification is becoming increasingly difficult since the exploitation of the offeree company by the controlling shareholder is more or less excluded by obligations to disclose information, by shareholder activism and by the reform of the Shareholder Rights Directive. In view of the foregoing, this paper argues for reform of the Directive’s mandatory bid rule making it a mere default rule.

Examination as to formal requirements of the Statement of claim

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Plassmann ◽  
Steffen Steininger
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Court System ◽  
Efficient Manner ◽  
Active Case ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Formal Requirements

Rule 16 UPCARoP gives the Registry the task of examining compliance with the formal requirements in the Statement of claim while at the same time defining the chronological order in which such examination is performed. The examination ensures compliance with the principle of expediting the proceedings already enshrined as a principle in the Preamble to the UPCA (‘expeditious decisions’). Compliance with the principle of flexibility, likewise laid down in the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure, is also thereby ensured. This principle also means that the Court must manage the proceedings in an active and efficient manner. In Art 43 UPCA, such active case management by the Court is expressly codified. Pursuant to Art 41(3), the Rules of Procedure have to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. The anticipated examination of the formal requirements as a first step ensures the effective conduct of proceedings because the formal requirements can be satisfied subsequently after a corresponding request by the Court. The examination of whether an EP is the subject matter of an opt-out ensures that during the transitional period the Court system desired and/or chosen by the proprietor is appropriate to hear the case

scholarly journals Opt-out policies capacity to increase organ donors is limited

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Molina Pérez ◽  
David Rodríguez-Arias ◽  
Janet Delgado
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Organ Donation ◽  
Default Rule ◽  
Relative Impact ◽  
Post Mortem ◽  
Presumed Consent ◽  
Organ Retrieval ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: To increase post-mortem organ donation rates, several countries are adopting an opt-out (presumed consent) policy, meaning that individuals are deemed donors unless they expressly refused so. However, studies on the relative impact of opt-in or opt-out on deceased organ donation rates are inconclusive. Although opt-out countries tend to have higher donation rates, there is no conclusive evidence that this is caused by the policy itself. The main objective of this study is to better assess the impact of consent policies when considering the role of the family in decision-making. Design: By systematically combining the three components of the decision-making process --the default rule, the deceaseds preferences, and the family s preferences,-- we identify all situations that affect the retrieval outcome under opt-in and opt-out policies. Then, by gathering empirical data from a wide array of countries, we estimate the relative frequency of these situations. Main outcome measures: We measure the relative impact that opt-in and opt-out policies have per se on post-mortem organ retrieval. Results: Our analysis shows that opt-in and opt-out have strictly identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations. These policies only differ when neither the deceased nor the family have expressed a preference and defaults therefore apply. The actual impact of consent policies is typically circumscribed to a range of 0% to 5% of all opportunities for organ retrieval. Conclusions: This study may warn contemporary organ retrieval policymakers that, by emphasizing the need to introduce presumed consent, they might be overestimating the influence of policy defaults and underestimating the power granted to families in expressing their preferences and making decisions about organ donation. Governments should reassess the opportunity and effectiveness of adopting opt-out policies for organ retrieval.

“Collective Redress” in European Competition Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-414
Author(s):  
Alexandra P. Mikroulea
Keyword(s):  
Hybrid System ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Mixed System ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Private Autonomy ◽  
European Competition Law

AbstractOpt-in or opt-out? That is the basic question to be answered. The decision to promote actions of “opt-in” type as opposed to those of the “opt-out” type, for the sake of private autonomy, does not ensure the effective application of european competition law. On the contrary, it may decrease the application’s intensity and effectiveness. Recent reforms among European state members such as in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are powerful indications that the opt-out principle may result in the effective implementation of competition law. There is no doubt that a mixed system (hybrid system), providing the court with the power to decide in favour of either the opt-in or the opt-out system, will result in better implementation of competition law. At the present time there are two pending cases in England (Dorothy Gibson and Mastercard) for which the decision on opt-out or opt-in are highly anticipated. Should the court decide, in one or both of the cases, on an opt-out approach, this will bring a momentous reevaluation of the entire collective redress concept.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document