Rule 23 – Lodging of the Statement of defence

The defendant shall lodge a Statement of defence within three months of service of the Statement of claim.

Case law

IPPT20250909, UPC CFI, LD München, PAPST v Ecovacs
No extension of deadlines for second defendant to lodge Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP) and Statement of defence (R. 23 RoP, R. 9.3 RoP). The defendant does not claim that it needs the extension in order to prepare an adequate defence. Although the aspect of procedural standardisation is to be recognised, it does not carry as much weight.

IPPT20250908, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Adobe v KEEEX
Extension and alignment of time limits of R.19 and R.23 RoP to 4 September 2025 for all respondents (R. 9.3 RoP).

IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, LD Munich, UERAN v Xiaomi
Request for predetermined time limits for not yet represented defendants accepted (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP).The defendants 1-3 and 6-7 not yet represented by counsel would agree to also instruct counsel to represent them in the present proceedings and to accept the requested time limit regime regardless of the date of actual service. 

IPPT20250903, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Dai Nippon v Zapp
Extension of time limit to file Statement of defence but with one week only, to carry out analysis of film material related to prior disclosure and prior use claims (R.9.3(a) RoP,  R. 23 RoP, R. 24(f) RoP, R. 170.1 RoP)

IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Proceedings stayed on joint application due to ongoing settlement negotiations (R. 295(d) RoP). If the proceedings resume, the claimant has a fresh two-month deadline for the reply in the infringement procedure and the defence to the counterclaim for revocation (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile
Extension for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and lodging the Statement of Defense (SoD) following Order establishing confidentiality club regime by order of 31 July 2025,but strictly limited to three weeks (nearly corresponding to the period between 31 July 2025  to the date of the present order) (R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP. R. 262A RoP)

IPPT20250826, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Shangrao v LONGi
Proceedings stayed on joint application due to ongoing settlement negotiations (R. 295(d) RoP). The time limit for submitting a Statement of defence (and a Counterclaim for revocation) pursuant to Rule 23 RoP is extended to full five months (R. 296.3 RoP)

IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global

Extension of deadline for Statement of defence rejected (R. 23 RoP). 

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay
Separation of proceedings at the court’s initiative prior to Statement of defence (R. 303.2 RoP,). While service on defendants 1 and 2 was effected on 3 June 2025, service on defendants 3 and 4 has not yet been effected. 

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Wilus v Asustek
An extension of one week for lodging Statement of defence because of confidentiality regime request is sufficient (R. 23 RoP, R. 262A RoP). A further extension of the time period is out of question taking the Defendants’ 2 to 6 behaviour into account. If the unredacted version played such an important role, they should have raised this immediately after service of the statement of claim in order to avoid a delay in the proceedings.
 

IPPT20250728, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Papst Licensing v Roborock
Application for extension of time limits granted with plaintiff's consent and agreement that service on the other two parties would be accepted (R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP, R. 25 RoP)

IPPT20250627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Irdeto v DJI
Extension of time period for Statement of defence  justified in order to establish a uniform time period regime, given that the dates of service vary for the Defendants 2 to 4, which are represented uniformly and which in the case of Defendants 2 and 3 belong to the same group if companies.(Rule 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP).

IPPT20250519, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Mailikie Innovations v Discord
Harmonization of time periods for lodging Statements of defence (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250509, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Samsung v ZTE

The time periods for the Statements of defence are set uniformly for all Defendants at 3 July 2025 (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250423, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Maxel v Samsung

Uniform setting of service date Statement of claim and deadline for Statement of defence following agreement between the parties (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250422, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Jinko v Longi
Agreement between parties on appearance of defendant 2 and extending deadline for Statement of defence and Counterclaim for revocation (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Genevant v Moderna
Multiple defendants. No extension of deadline to file a R. 19 RoP Preliminary objection, if any (R. 9 RoP). Deadlines to lodge Statements of defense not extended but streamlined (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek - I
Extension of time period to lodge Statement of defence with two months from the date of service of amended Statement of claim (R. 23 RoP)

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycel
Application to re-establish the right to file Statement of Defence rejected for non-observance of due care (R. 23 RoP, R. 320 RoP). Given the circumstances, Defendant, and thus his counsel, had an obligation to take (pre-cautionary measures of) due care to avoid non-observance of the time-limit set by the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the SoD submitted on 4 March 2025 shall not be considered. As the right to file the SoD is not re-established, a decision by default shall be rendered in the infringement action. The same applies to a relating counterclaim for revocation, if any.

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Truma v CAN
No extension of time period for lodging Preliminary objection or Statement of defence (R. 9(3) RoP, R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP). Not justified by an alleged ineffectiveness of the service of process at the trade fair: both the start of the time period for filing a Preliminary objection and the time period for filing a Statement of defence are linked to the service of the Statement of claim

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Dexcom v Abbott

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Extension and alignment of deadline for filling Statement of Defence by multiple defendants in accordance with agreement between the parties at case management hearing, which is considered reasonable by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 23 RoP, Rule 334 RoP).

IPPT20231218, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Hewlett-Packard v Lama
Request for extension of time limit for filing Statement of defence of 3 months rejected (Rule 25 RoP). Defendant cannot legitimately invoke its own negligence in that it did not open the documents in support of the statement of claim on the CMS until 4 weeks after the date of communication of the access code in order to be granted its request for an extension of the statutory time limit of 3 months for submitting its statement of defence.

IPPT20231027, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, 10x Genomics v Vizgen

Extension of time to file Statement of Defense with the period of time that the plaintiffs allowed to elapse with the subsequent submission of the annexes.

IPPT20231004, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci

Extension and alignment of deadline for lodging Statement of Defence granted as agreed. Extension and alignment of deadline for lodging Preliminary Objection because of procedural advantage and representative for defendants helping to make a prompt and successful service  of the Statement of Claim possible though risking a shortening of the relevant deadlines. Extension in alignment with UPC system (two months before Statement of Defence).

IPPT20231013, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis
Valid date of service of statement of claim with Annexes (Rule 271 RoP). A Statement of claim, even if it refers to or announces the later submission of Annexes, can be validly served on a defendant, provided that the Statement of claim without the Annexes enables the defendant to assert its rights in legal proceedings before the courts of the UPC. A Statement of claim must therefore at least state with certainty the subject matter and cause of action. Only annexes that are indispensable for the understanding of the subject matter and the cause of action must be served (and where necessary translated) on a defendant, together with the Statement of claim. Extension of terms for Preliminary objections and Statement of defense because of unavailability of Annexes (Rules 13, 19 and 23 RoP). If a claimant did not upload the Annexes simultaneously with the Statement of claim in the CMS, and thus did not comply with Rule 13.2, and as a consequence these have not been available when the representative of the defendant accessed the CMS with the Access Code contained in the Notice, this in itself is sufficient to constitute a reasoned request by a defendant for an extension of the terms mentioned in Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP for lodging a Preliminary objection and the Statement of defense, regardless of the nature and/or content of the Annexes. Failing any specific circumstances of an individual case which calls for another term, which have to be brought forward by the claimant, the extension of the terms mentioned in Rules 19.1 and 23 shall compensate for and thus be equal to the period during which the Annexes have not been available after service of the Statement of claim contrary to Rule 13.2 RoP.