Rule 263 – Leave to change claim or amend case

1. A party may at any stage of the proceedings apply to the Court for leave to change its claim or to amend its case, including adding a counterclaim. Any such application shall explain why such change or amendment was not included in the original pleading.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, leave shall not be granted if, all circumstances considered, the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that:

(a) the amendment in question could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage; and

(b) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of its action. 

3. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted.

4. The Court may re-consider fees already paid in the light of an amendment.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20241223, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno - II
A unconditional limitation of the damages claimed shall be regarded as an unconditional limitation of the claim  (R 263.3 RoP). 

IPPT20241121, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” (R. 263 RoP). An amendment of the case in the sense of R. 263 RoP only occurs when the nature and scope of the dispute changes such as through the introduction of a new patent or objection to a new product. A new basis for infringement (such as equivalence) merely concerns the extent of protection conferred under the art. 69 EPC and the corresponding protocol.

IPPT20240925, UPC CoA, Mammut v Ortovox

Leave to change claims or to amend case (R. 263 RoP) also applies to requests for interim measures

IPPT20240726, UPC CoA, OrthoApnea
Request for suspensive effect of appeal, regarding a decision not to extend a time period and to allow amendment of infringement claim with equivalency, admissible but unfounded (Art. 74(1) UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 263 RoP). Parties submit their statements in the written procedure without knowing how their allegations will be assessed by the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal. That entails the risk that part of their allegations will not be relevant for the outcome of the case.

IPPT20240726, UPC CoA, ICPillar v ARM
Request ICPillar for confidentiality of insurance policy rejected on 23 July 2024 (Rule 262A RoP). ARM given the opportunity to amend its Statement of response regarding the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 by 2 August 2024. (Rule 263 RoP). ICPillar not given an opportunity to amend its Statement and grounds of appeal. ICPillar could bring – and should have brought – forward arguments in its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal based on the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 when lodging the appeal and request confidentiality in relation to that document together with uploading a redacted version of its Statement of claim and grounds of appeal, as it has done with Exhibit 4 itself.

IPPT20240726, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Allowability of auxiliary requests to be argued and decided at the oral hearing (Rule 263 RoP). In view thereof, time extension for Statement of response reasonable, also taking into account the summer holiday period (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 235 RoP).

IPPT20240604, UPC CoA, Daedalus v Xiaomi
Application to withdraw appeal in relation to two (Xiaomi DE and Xiaomi NL) of several defendants rejected (Rule 265 RoP). Rule 263.3 RoP is not applicable to withdrawal of an appeal against respondents in appeal proceedings since it allows for a an unconditional limitation of a claim in an action, while the present withdrawal is a matter of limiting not the claim but the respondents in the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20240219, UPC CoA, Netgear v Huawei
Leave to amend case by adding new patent (Rule 263 RoP). The principle of due process requires that, where a new patent is added to an action already pending, the defendant should have the same time to respond to the new patent - and, where appropriate, to bring an action for revocation - as it would have had if a new action had been brought in respect of that patent.  Extension of time limit for Statement of defense to 18 April 2024 (three months after Order of 18 January 2024) (IPPT20240118)

Court of First Instance

PPT20241202, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Heraeus v Vibrantz
Panel review: Change of claim to include Romania allowed (R. 263 RoP, R. 333 RoP).Change of claim to include Romania allowed (R. 263 RoP). The two extensions of the action shall be allowed because both parties have requested that the question of infringement and validity concerning Romania also be heard and decided. Amendment of claim to include process claim allowed: does not constitute a change of claim within the meaning of Rule 263 RoP. This is because, following the example of the Court of Appeal, no other patent is being asserted. The infringement allegation regarding the same product is merely supported by an additional patent claim. Accordingly, only Rule 13 in conjunction with point 7 of the preamble and Rule 9.2 Rules of Procedure are to be examined.

IPPT20241126, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Unconditional reduction of damages sought in an infringement action is a limitation of the claim that must be granted (R. 263(3) RoP) if it is filed with due explanation and unconditionally and irrespective of the subjective intention underlying the application. No re-considering of already paid fees on an application lacking substantive argumentation
 

IPPT20241122, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Insulet v Eoflow
 Amendments of the patent are subject to Rule 30 RoP. Rule 263 RoP refers only to amendments to pleadings. Auxiliary request to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 RoP is not admissible in the proceedings for provisional measures.

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Dexcom v Abbott
No leave granted to ABBOTT to amend case to cover new version of ABBOTT application (R. 263 RoP). Justified that ABBOTT could not have disclosed commercially sensitive information about  the launch of a new product to its competitor DEXCOM. The Amendment will unreasonably hinder DEXCOM in the conduct of is action given that the oral hearing is in ten days time and it put DEXCOM in a situation where it would not be able to appropriately prepare for the oral hearing due to the new scope of the litigation. ABBOTT may also be able to prove that its new version of the app does not infringe the patent at issue at the time of enforcement if infringement measures are ordered in the present case. 

IPPT20241007, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Abbott v Dexcom
Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Request to change claim dismissed (R. 263 RoP). Request should have been in the application, not in an annex; changes asked are not mere corrections, could have been formulated earlier and extend the scope of the injunction. No need for alternative claims as the Court may grant the relief in full or in part as requested (Article 76.1 UPCA). 

IPPT20240925, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz - II
Leave to change claim granted following judgment of the Bundespatentgericht of 7 May 2024, except for claim II.2, which is not related thereto and could have been asserted as early as 12 March 2024 (R. 263 RoP). The amendment to the action almost three months later is no longer within the bounds of due diligence and must therefore be rejected. This also applies with regard to the subsequent claims referring to it. The plaintiff is free to assert these claims by filing a separate action.

IPPT20240924, UPC CFI, LD Paris, IGB v Unilever
Amended claims do not constitute change of claims (R. 263 RoP). No substantial amendments, which are of such a nature as to alter and prejudice the subject matter of the dispute and its scope, and relate only to the arrangements for implementing and enforcing any judgment.

IPPT20240917, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott v Dexcom-I
Leave to amend counter claim for revocation and response to amended claim allowed (R. 263 RoP). At the time of the Statement of defence including a counter claim Abbott’s withdrawal of the claims against the G7-System with G7-Receiver could not yet be envisaged

IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Leave to unconditionally limit claim and new auxiliary claim equal to the previous main claim (Rule 263.3 RoP). 

IPPT20240823, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek
Leave for an unconditional limitation of the scope of the initial claim (Rule 263(3) RoP). Defendant Arvato should no longer be considered to be infringing according to Art. 25(a) UPCA, but regarded as an intermediary according to Art. 62(1) UPCA, whose services are used by the other Defendants to infringe the Patent.

IPPT20240806, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Motorola v Ericsson
Leave to change claim rejected (Rule 263(2)(a) RoP). If either condition is not met, the court's discretion is reduced to zero and it must refuse the application.The applications for injunctive relief and further corrective measures, i.e. recall, permanent removal and destruction of the allegedly infringing embodiments, could, with reasonable diligence, have been brought earlier than 06/05/2024. The statement of claim was served on the defendants on 17/02/2024. Therefore, the application for amendment could and should have been filed by mid-February at the latest. As this is a clear-cut case leave to appeal is not granted (Rule 220(2) RoP).

IPPT20240802, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
An amendment of an application for amendment of a patent is not governed by Rule 263 RoP but to be classified as a subsequent request to amend the patent within the meaning of Rule 30(2) RoP, which is admissible only with the permission of the Court

IPPT20230719, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Amending infringement claim with equivalence arguments after receiving defendant’s defense in line with procedural evolutive course of the dispute and does not affect subject matter of the proceedings (Rule 263 RoP, Rule 13 RoP).

IPPT20230708, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Amendment of case in Statement of Reply in response to the Statement of Defence with new facts, infringement arguments (equivalence) and claim permitted (Rule 263 RoP, Rule 13 RoP): consistent with the normative purpose of R. 13 RoP and, fitting into the procedurally-evolutive course of a judicial dispute. Deadline extension for Rejoinder to Statement of Reply with 2 weeks proportionate, reasonable and equitable (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, Rule 29)(c) RoP). Extended period does not affect Claimant's rights, nor does it affect the further procedural calendar already determined in this case (specifically, the dates of the interim conference and pleading date).

IPPT20240514, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Leave to unconditionally limit the claim in action granted (Rule 263(3) RoP): The present action does not assert any claims against the realisation of the claimed teaching of the patent-in-suit by graphics cards of the NVIDIA Cooperation and/or companies affiliated with it.

IPPT20240227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril Italy v Edwards Lifesciences
Subsequent request to change original request to amend the patent rejected because of insufficient justification  (Rule 30(2) RoP). Leave to change claim or amend case and application to amend patent can be filed simultaneously in one pleading, especially in a situation, where strict time periods come into play (Rule 263 RoP, Rule 30 RoP) in accordance with the principles of flexibility, fairness and equity, mentioned in the preamble 2, 4 and 5 of the Rules of Procedures, as well as of the principle of procedural efficiency. A request to replace the original application to amend the patent with a new set of amendments is not governed by Rule 263 RoP but falls under Rule 50(2) RoP and pursuant to Rule 30(2) RoP such a subsequent request requires the permission of the Court. 

IPPT20240131, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard

Front loaded proceedings and late filing (Rule 263 RoP) Parties are hereby informed that any applications to change their case will be duly considered – without prejudice to whether such applications will be granted or not – until 15 March 2024. Amendments introduced after that date will be presumed to be in violation of the requirements of Rule 263.2(a) RoP. Document filed by the Claimant with the Reply to the Defence to Revocation not disregarded as late-filed, but admitted; it was agreed that the Defendant would get the opportunity to respond to the submissions of the Claimant based on document D46 within 6 weeks after the date of the interim conference, in a written submission having a maximum of 10 pages. Defendant subsequently withdrew its objection. 

IPPT20240118, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Netgear v Huawei
Leave to amend the action to include claims of additional patent after the conclusion of limitation proceedings related thereto as granted by judge-rapporteur confirmed by the panel (Rule 263 RoP, Article 105a EPC). Rule 263 RoP leave to change claim or amend case is a procedural order to be made by the judge-rapporteur and subject to review by the panel (Rule 333 RoP and subsequent appeal (Rule 220 RoP). The request is unfounded. Assessment of the admissibility of the extension of the action is based solely on Rule 263 RoP and not on national law. The plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to assert the limited claims earlier before the conclusion of the limitation proceedings, also due to the risk of a further counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the second patent. In the context of the present proceedings or in the context of separate proceedings, the defendants must be granted the same time limits for their defence that would have been granted if they had filed a separate action, but no longer. 

IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear - Leave

Leave to amend the case by including a second (related) patent (EP 3678321) (Rule 263 RoP). The requirements for a refusal of admission are not met. The court is convinced that the amendment in question could not have been made earlier with due diligence. If both patents are jointly managed within the same infringement proceedings, the court is obliged to grant the defendant largely the same defence options in relation to the second patent as in the case of a new, further action. This can be done by granting or extending deadlines for comments. In the case of separation of the subject matter of the extension of the action, this would even be simplified. The parties will be heard in a separate workflow on the question of whether the subject matter of the extension of the action can or should be separated.