Attempt to re-open proceedings

One of the largest petroleum refining companies in the Baltic Region (and co-owner of the Lithuanian patent) sought to re-open previous proceedings, although there were no grounds to initiate a re-examination of the final judicial decision. Regardless of this, the Court of First Instance decided to stay the proceedings reasoning there was a probability that hypothetical grounds may occur in the future.

Motieka & Audzevičius appealed this ruling and the Court of Appeal of Lithuania stated that the ruling of the Court of First Instance is contrary to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and, therefore, must be annulled.

This outcome bears a large significance on the rights of the client because the re-opening of the proceedings was used by the other co-owner as an instrument to complicate and delay a civil procedure in which the co-authors are claiming remuneration for the economic effect which the petroleum refining company allegedly received during the period of 1996-2010 from the use of said patent.

Experience