Rule 353 – Rectification of decisions and orders

The Court may, by way of order, of its own motion or on application by a party made within one month of service of the decision or order to be rectified, after hearing the parties, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in the decision or order.

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20251009, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
Rectification of the Court’s own motion of obvious slip in decision (R. 353 RoP,)

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Request for rectification rejected (R. 353 RoP, R. 356.3 RoP). No clerical mistake or obvious slip as the impugned decision, the Court of Appeal ruled on the basis of the request filed by Microsoft in its Request for discretionary review filed on 22 April 2025, which did not include a request that a further decision by default shall be final and that Suinno be put on notice pursuant to R. 356.3 RoP. 

IPPT20240927, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST
Information meant in R. 158.4 RoP – that if the party fails to provide adequate security within the time stated, a decision by default may be given in accordance with Rule 355 – does not necessarily have to be given in the Order to provide security for costs. In its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Volkswagen had not requested that this information be included in the Order itself either. The Court thus does not see the necessity for rectification of the Order (R. 353 RoP). It therefore suffices that the information as meant in R.158.4 RoP is provided to NST by this separate order.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Headwater v Samsung
Rectification of decision pursuant to R. 353 RoP . On its own motion, the Court rectifies paragraph 6 of the order in the decision of 29 September 2025 because it contains a clerical error and a calculation error. 
 

IPPT20250902, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Requests for rectification of decision on costs (Article 69(2) UPCA) dismissed. No obvious slip in decision of  21 July 2025  (R. 353 RoP). The decision – including items XII) and XIV) in its operative part – has the effect that the Claimant shall bear the remaining 25 % of its reasonable and proportionate costs in the counterclaim(s) for revocation and that the Defendants shall bear all its own costs. Neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure prevents such an allocation of costs.

IPPT20250819, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Rectification of obvious calculation error in cost decision of  25 July 2025 (R. 353 RoP). The Court cannot, in the context of a R. 353 RoP procedure, reconsider the grounds for its decision. The time limits set out in R 221 (1) RoP are not adjusted (in the sense of suspended) by the present Correction Order (or request for such) and the Cost Decision itself remains decisive.

IPPT20250729, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Rectification rejected (R. 353 RoP). It must therefore be concluded that there is no material error in the decision on costs with regard to the quantification of the final sum paid to Oerlikon in the amount of €80,000.00, while the phrase “to this must be added €20,000.00 for the case on the merits” is a mere typographical error that did not affect the reasoning and whose failure to be taken into account in the final calculation does not constitute a material error to be amended here. 

IPPT2025040603, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Two identical applications for rectification because of CMS questions when filing a request for rectification (R. 353 RoP). The applications are founded with regard to items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8. Edwards did not object to these requests.

IPPT20250521, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Kinexon v Ballinno
Patent number rectified from 1 994 067 into 1 944 067 (R. 353 RoP)

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Barco v Yealink

Application for rectification of final order dismissed (R. 353 RoP). A decision/order of the Court should be read and interpreted as a whole, the motivational part of the decision/order (grounds) being as much a part of the decision/order as its substantive part (decision).

IPPT20250429, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Confirmed that costs incurred by successful party regarding application to set aside a decision by default (R. 356 RoP) are to be claimed in separate proceedings for a cost decision (R. 150 RoP). 

IPPT20250409, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Tridonic v Cupower
Partial rectification of decision of 7 March 2025 (R. 353 RoP). The phrase ‘directly and indirectly’ Is incorrectly used in the decision as it was deleted in auxiliary request, so that it was a clerical error and thus an obvious inaccuracy. Based on Rule 353 RoP, the parties are not entitled to have all lawyers from the same law firm who were involved in the proceedings at any time listed in the rubrum of the decision

IPPT20250331, UPC CFI, CD Paris, BMW v ITCiCo Spain
Rectification is limited to errors (R. 353 RoP) consisting of a mere oversight by the judge which has resulted in the non-expression or inaccurate expression of a judgment that was, however, already formed and can be inferred from the context of the ruling. Errors that constitute the expression of a lacking or at least deficient judgment do not fall into this category. 

IPPT20250319, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Adeia v Disney
Rectification of scheduling order (R. 353 RoP). The scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 is rectified. Item 4 now reads: “The oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026, 9.00 a.m., in person in Denisstr. 3 in Munich, room 212 and overflow room 220b.” 

IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak

Application for rectification dismissed (R. 353 RoP). No “obvious slip”: the declaration of the Court’s intention in the decision or order does not deviate from the intention that existed when the decision was made.

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hereaeus v Vibrantz
Rectification of order of 2 December 2024 by inserting an order corresponding to the grounds, which was simply overlooked (R. 353 RoP). 

IPPT20250217, UPC LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Application for rectification of decision of 15 November 2024 partly unfounded (R. 353 RoP). “Obvious slips” within the meaning of R. 353 RoP are all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court actually intended in the order or decision. In other words, the declaration of the Court’s intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention that existed when the decision was made 

IPPT20250121, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
No rectification unredacted version confidentiality club order (R. 353 RoP, R. 262A RoP). No “obvious slip” nor any other clerical mistake. In the “unredacted version” it contains the name of the natural person of Defendant 7. to whom access was granted. It is only in the “redacted version” that this name is deleted and replaced by “[…]”

IPPT20241120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
No rectification of order (R. 353 RoP). Correct list of BMW models: no error or obvious slip: the model “2 Series Gran Coupé” was not introduced into the proceedings by the Defendants before their application for rectification of 6 November 2024. No slip of vindication action in France: omissions are not “clerical mistakes, errors in calculations and obvious slips”.  The statement in the Order is “With regard to the French part of the patent in suit, Defendant 1) filed a vindication action before the Paris Court of First Instance on 22 August 2024 (see Exhibits HRM 21a-1 – 21a-71).” Substituting a party’s understanding for the Court’s assessment: not an obvious slip. The Defendants substitute their understanding of the wording of the Nomination Letter referred to for the Court's assessment that it does not impose an obligation. This is not a valid argument for rectifying the Order. Written submissions outside any time limit set by the Court disregarded: submitted without having been given the opportunity to be heard by the Court, were not be taken into account (R. 9.2 RoP)

IPPT20230630, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, myStromer v Revolt Zycling

Unsuccessful application for rectification under Rule 353 of order so as to include Austria in the  countries covered by provisional injunction. Application admissible under Rule 353. Obiter dictum: Since Rule 353 only allows for purely formal corrections without an examination of the substance of the matter, it is not necessary for the panel to decide in the same composition as when the order was issued. No obvious inaccuracy. Obvious inaccuracies includes all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the court actually intended in the order or decision. The declaration of the judicial intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention present when the decision was made. Order for provision measures was issued on the basis of the application where in the auxiliary request Austria was not explicitly mentioned. The fact that the more general main request, seeks the grant of an interim injunction in respect of all member states of the Unified Patent Court in which the patent for invalidity is in force does not give rise to a different assessment, as the applicant only deals with Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy in connection with the justification of an act of infringement. Conflict with the territorial scope provided in article 34 UPC Agreement does not justify a rectification under Rule 353.