Rule 32 – Lodging of the Defence to the Application to amend the patent, the Reply to the Defence and the Rejoinder to the Reply

1. Within two months of service of an Application to amend the patent, the defendant shall lodge a Defence to the Application to amend the patent setting out whether he opposes the Application to amend the patent and, if so, why:

(a) the proposed amendments are not allowable; and

(b) the patent cannot be maintained as requested.

2. Where appropriate in view of the proposed amendments, the Defence to the Application to amend the patent may contain submissions in accordance with Rule 44(d) to (h) and alternative non-infringement submissions.

3. The proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Application to amend the patent within one month of service of the Defence and the defendant may within one month of the service of the Reply lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply. The Rejoinder shall be limited to the matters raised in the Reply.

Case Law:

Court of Appeal

IPPT20240426, UPC CoA, AIM Sport v Supponor
Infringement proceedings and Provisional measures proceedings are two different proceedings (Article 32.1(a) and (c) UPCA). The fact that the basis for both proceedings is the same – the same infringement – does not lead to a different conclusion. The “Information about appeal” in the decision should have distinguished between the separate proceedings, such that in the infringement proceedings (ACT_545571/2023) the time period of two months applied and in the provisional measure proceedings (ACT_551054/2023) the applicable time period was 15 days. Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations: excusable error concerning applicable appeal time period because of non-obvious incorrect information provided by Court of First Instance, but outcome inf future cases may be different now that the Court of Appeal has clarified the wording used in Rule 220.1(c) RoP.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
 Admissibility of late filed assertions and late filed evidentiary documents (R. 263 RoP, R. 32 RoP). The documents introduced by the claimant in the reply to defence to revocation – including the declaration released by […] and the documents referred to in that statement – are admissible, given that they contain arguments regarding the common general knowledge and the claim construction which are intended to contrast and react to the arguments raised by defendant in its defence to revocation and the evidence […] filed in support of these latter arguments. The admissibility of these late filed documents shall also extend to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. Individual line of arguments to use the combination of ‘Pan’ with either ‘Duke’, ‘Tucker’ or ‘CAS’ considered late filed as it was not raised in the statement for revocation, but only in the reply to the defence and hence must be disregarded.

IPPT20241120, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, DexCom v Abbott
Claimants’ time limit for filing Rejoinder to Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to conditional application to amend extended on grounds of fairness and equity, since the previous time limit was, with the consent of the Claimant, extended to a similar extent in favour of the Defendants. (R. 9 RoP, R. 29(e) RoP , R. 32.3(1) RoP)

IPPT20240805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce
Subsequent request to amend the patent requires permission of the Court, which permission can be postponed at the discretion of the Court, in which case admission of the auxiliary request is still possible depending on the further progress of the proceedings (Rule 30(2) RoP). Two month period of Rule 32(1) RoP for lodging a Defence to the Application to amend the patent does not apply to later subsequent requests to amend the patent of Rule 30(2) RoP.

IPPT20231214, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Nutricia v Nestlé

The provisions of the Brussels 1-bis Regulation do not apply to a counterclaim for revocation, which is to be included in the Statement of defence (Rule 25(1) RoP, Rule 270 RoP). At the request of the claimant, the Court clarifies that the time limit for filing the Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and any Application for the amendment of the patent is 20 December 2023 (Rule 29 RoP, Rule 30 RoP, Rule 32 RoP).