UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf,12 September 2025: Subsequent requests for amendment of the patent rejected.
24-12-2025 Print this page
Subsequent requests for amendment of the patent rejected. (Rule 30(2) RoP).
Application not sufficient to enable court’s to exercise discretion. Plaintiff's reasoning limited to general statements.The Plaintiff did not establish a connection between the amendments made in the auxiliary motions and specific arguments made by the defendant in the proceedings. The court was unable to assess whether the admission of the further auxiliary motions complies with the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity.
Leave to file a further pleading dismissed. (Rule 36 RoP). In view of the lack of admission of the further auxiliary requests pursuant to, there is no basis for the desired introduction of coordinated requests in the infringement proceedings.
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser II
