UPC CFI, LD Mannheim 6 June 2025: Amending an infringement claim is different from amending a counterclaim for revocation
05-09-2025 Print this page
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon - I
Application for leave to amend the counterclaim for revocation dismissed (R. 263 RoP).
A claimant in a counterclaim for revocation is not free, or at least privileged, to amend its case compared to a claimant in an infringement action. Rather, R. 263 RoP applies in full to a counterclaim for revocation.
In any case, granting leave to amend the counterclaim for revocation if a simple search could have revealed a document from the prior art which the claimant of the counterclaim for revocation itself considers highly relevant would amount to allowing practically any document found later and the attack on validity based thereon.
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Sunstar v Ceracon - II
Clarifying amendment to the wording of Request IV in the Statement of claims is admissible without the need of an application pursuant to R. 263 RoP and, if necessary, permitted.
Obvious oversights cannot automatically be regarded as grounds for exclusion under R. 263.2(a) RoP in accordance with the purpose of R. 263 RoP to protect the front-loaded proceedings.
When assessing whether to grant leave for the amendment of the claim, the court has to balance the conflicting interests of the parties concerned, thereby taking all circumstances of the individual case into account.
