UPC CFI, LD Dusseldord, 12 November 2025 : Denied request to review order dismissing extension of time period for rejoinder.

Request for review of order regarding dismissal of extension of time period for lodging of a rejoinder denied. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 9 (3) RoP). 

Reasons why Defendants needed an extension of time is not pointed out in the request for extension or the panel review request. (Rule 9 (3)RoP). 

Their sole argument can be deduced to the fact that the Claimant had more time to file a brief than the Defendants. Besides the fact, that the Rules of Procedures accept different time periods for different briefs.

The Defendant’s approach regarding filing an application for confidentiality to cause delay 

would lead to situations where parties would be able to file applications for confidentiality in the future well knowing that any delay caused by their application would additionally grant them longer time periods for their further submissions. (Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave Machine v Surftown