Rule 36 – Further exchanges of written pleadings

Without prejudice to the powers of the judge-rapporteur pursuant to Rule 110.1, on a reasoned request by a party lodged before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure [Rule 35(a)], the judge-rapporteur may allow the exchange of further written pleadings, within a period to be specified. Where the exchange of further written pleadings is allowed, the written procedure shall be deemed closed upon expiry of the specified period.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260304, UPC CoA, Hurom v NUC
Request for further exchange of written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP). New arguments on inventive steps […] have been raised by NUC in response to the new Auxiliary Requests brought for the first time by HUROM with the Grounds of Appeal and could consequently not have been submitted at an earlier stage. HUROM has been waiting for two months following the filing of the Statement of Response until it lodged the R. 36 RoP application for further exchange of written submissions on 22 February 2026, while it knew, according to the order of the judge-rapporteur of 20 October 2025, that following the filing of the Statement of response in this appeal, the appeal proceedings were expected to be ready for oral hearing. The parties will have the opportunity to further comment on each other’s positions from a legal perspective at the oral hearing. 

IPPT20260227, UPC CoA, Sibio v Abbott
Request rejected for further exchange of written submissions, following reference in Statement of response to auxiliary requests already submitted in the first instance (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP). The Auxiliary Requests must be considered to be part of the appeal proceedings, until and unless indicated otherwise (e.g. by a withdrawal). In a situation where the CFI did not need to decide on Auxiliary Requests, Appellant still has to address them if it wants to add anything to what was already submitted at first instance. Not allowing further pleadings is not contrary to the principles of due process, in particular the principles of fairness, equity and the right to be heard

IPPT20250901, UPC CoA, Centripetal v Keysight
No discretionary appeal review of panel confirmation of rejection of request for further written pleadings (regarding new allegedly infringing products) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 36 RoP). CFI's exercise of discretion cannot be regarded as manifestly wrong. The CFI has not deprived CENTRIPETAL from its right to bring separate actions regarding newly-released infringing products, whether it is AI Stack or any other products from KEYSIGHT or any other third party, so that a risk of res judicata regarding facts and arguments not included in these proceedings has not been established.

IPPT20250821, UPC CoA, Seoul v expert e-Commerce

A request for further submission made after the oral hearing should generally be denied (R. 36 RoP). There is no need to respond to the court’s introduction or to summarise the oral hearing.

IPPT20250814, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for leave to change the claim rejected (R. 263 RoP). An application must explain why such change was not included in the original pleading. 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. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted. Request for exchange of further written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP, R. 222 RoP). Parties are entitled to make references to what was said at the oral hearing, subject of course to the duty to not misrepresent cases or facts. If the opposing party experiences a need to nuance or correct statements it made at the oral hearing, it can do so in the Statement of grounds of appeal.

IPPT20241101, UPC CoA, Scandit v Hand Held Products
Application to file a reply to the Statement of  response rejected (R. 36 RoP, R. 222.2(a) RoP). The fact that Hand Held Products defended the court's interpretation in the response to the appeal with reference to paragraph [0063] does not justify allowing the filing of a reply. Scandit has not substantiated why Hand Held Products' reference to this one paragraph of the patent description requires a new indepth discussion and is not merely a selective aspect of the overall interpretation of features 1.7 to 1.9 of patent claim 1. Scandit will have the opportunity to address this aspect at the oral hearing. Nor can Scandit be allowed to submit further prior art on appeal. In particular, it has not justified that the further prior art which it wishes to submit for the first time in the appeal proceedings could not reasonably have been submitted in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, as provided for in R. 222.2(a) RoP.

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Aylo v Dish - I
Request for discretionary review in the absence of leave to appeal (Rule 220(4) RoP). Parties cannot take procedural steps of their own motion (Rule 9(1) RoP; Rule 36 RoP). It follows from Rule 36 RoP that a reasoned request and authorisation by the judge is required. The written submissions provided for in R.220.4 of the Rules of Procedure are an application and, if the Permanent Judge hears the other party, a reply. Any further submissions must be authorised by the Standing Judge)

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Apple v Ona
Reply to Statement of response not taken into account. Further written pleadings may only be filed after a Rule 36 RoP request, filed before the closing of the interim procedure, has been granted (Rule 239 RoP). In appeal there is no provision for notification in accordance with Rule 35a RoP.

IPPT20250724, UPC CoA, OTEC v Steros
Further written pleadings allowed in appeal of granted PI (R.36 RoP) with respect to the new experiment performed by STEROS regarding the alleged embodiment of the patent in dispute and the argumentation relating to the same under para. 50 to 65 of the Statement of Response of 15 July 2025. Under R. 36 RoP it is reasonable, in the context of an appeal on provisional measures, to grant appellant a time limit of no more than two weeks to lodge the further written pleading
 

IPPT20240617, UPC CoA, Audi v NST

IPPT20240617, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST
Further exchange of written pleadings in appeal proceedings allowed  (Rule 36 RoP). The Court of Appeal considers the request by Audi to be sufficiently reasoned. It wants to correct some facts submitted by NST in relation to its behavior in the market, together with written evidence. The Court of Appeal considers that Audi has a sufficient interest to do so and that the written procedure is the most convenient phase to do so. The Court of Appeal therefore allows the request. There is no need to consult NST about this request. NST will be given the opportunity to respond to the additional statement lodged by Audi within 14 days after the day on which this order is issued. 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260115, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google
Order of judge rapporteur not allowing the exchange of further written pleading and not allowing late amendment of the case to include indirect infringement confirmed by panel (Rule. 36 RoP, Rule. 263 RoP, Rule. 333.2 and 333.3 RoP) 

IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE Corporation v Samsung Electronics
Defendant’s request for extending written procedure dismissed. (Rule . 36 RoP). There is no reason apparent why Samsung’s right to be heard necessitates extending the written procedure. The oral hearing is already scheduled to take place in approximately two months, so that the conclusion of the written proceedings must not be delayed. 

IPPT20251216, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Non-infringement arguments disregarded, request for the exchange of further written pleadings dismissed. (Rule 209 RoP, Rule 36 RoP, Rule 9 RoP). 

IPPT20251120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Exchange of further written pleadings partially allowed. (Rule 36 RoP). Claimant allowed to submit EPO’s preliminary opinion and a summary of the EPO’s reasoning until 21 November 2025. Submission of second test purchase rejected. The claimant does not sufficiently explain why the submission could not have been made earlier in the reply to the statement of defence filed on 16 December 2024 , as the test purchase was conducted in October 2024.  The submission does not introduce any genuinely new subject matter. 

IPPT20251119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, InterDigital v Disney
Further exchange of written pleadings allowed (Rule 36 RoP) . Claimant permitted to respond to Defendant’s arguments regarding noninfringement and FRAND.

IPPT20251014, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Ekahau
Request for Further exchanges of written pleadings dismissed. Written proceedings closed. (Rule 35 RoP, Rule 36 RoP). 

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser II
Leave to file a further pleading dismissed. (Rule 36 RoP). In view of the lack of admission of the further auxiliary requests pursuant to, there is no basis for the desired introduction of coordinated requests in the infringement proceedings.

IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, Trumpf v IPG Laser - I
Arguments raised in the counterclaim that do not relate to the counterclaim or application to amend the patent are to be disregarded (R. 9.2 RoP, R. 36 RoP). Even if an application for the admission of further pleadings pursuant to R. 36 RoP may be made until the conclusion of the written procedure, the court may take into account the timing of such an application in the written procedure.

IPPT20250820, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Panel confirms dismissal of request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), (R. 36 RoP)

IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Beko
Plaintiff may submit a written statement on the defendants’ FRAND objection (R. 36 RoP)

IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight
Request for further written pleadings dismissed (R. 36 RoP)
 

IPPT20250522, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Panel review confirms case management order not to allow a further exchange of written pleadings (R. 12.5 RoP, R. 36 RoP, R. 333 RoP). A request pursuant to R. 36, 12.5 RoP calls for a sufficient degree of substantiation so that the judge-rapporteur can retrieve the essential facts from the application itself without having to study the file. This formal standard applies in general and does not depend on whether there was a change of the judge-rapporteur or not. As far as Claimant attempts to remedy the deficiencies in its request pursuant R. 333 RoP, these statements are irrelevant to the review proceedings. It is inherent in the review proceedings that it has the same basis as the impugned order. On a regular basis, the review only concerns the facts and the state of the dispute at the time the impugned order was issued, so that the additional arguments now put forward in the review proceedings do not justify a different outcome.

IPPT20250514, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments - I
The final decision on the admission of further written submissions  (R. 12.5 RoP, R. 36 RoP) is partially postponed until the oral hearing and otherwise rejected. Insofar as the decision is postponed, Claimant shall be given 3 two weeks to submit its submission in writing, being strictly limited to AVS Class 0. Afterwards Defendants have the opportunity to respond within two weeks.

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Request to allow exchange of further written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP). Whether plaintiff takes a different view on the interpretation of an allegedly similar patent claim in other proceedings is irrelevant for the interpretation of the patent in suit. A different view on another patent does not constitute admissible interpretative material.

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
No further exchange of written pleadings after CoA decision of 30 April 2025 in PI proceedings (R. 36 RoP). The parties have fully argued their respective positions at both the preliminary and the substantive stages of the proceedings and their positions have been well examined, sometimes even repeatedly. 

IPPT20250401, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Total Semiconductors v Texas Instruments
Exchange of further written pleadings dismissed (R. 36 RoP). The party requesting to allow further briefs has to out in the application itself sufficient details. It should not not limit its submission to vague and general terms alone but set out in detail with reference to specific paragraphs of the briefs which points had been addressed so far and explains with a sufficient level of substantiation the grounds why a further brief is necessary in deviation from the general framework of R. 12 RoP.
 

IPPT20250304, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac
No further exchange of written pleadings allowed (R. 36 RoP). Request must be made promptly after receipt of rejoinder. No sound justification as to why, based on the defendant's submissions in the rejoinder, it was necessary for the first time to submit written statements on a possible equivalent infringement.

IPPT20250226, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei
No further exchange of written pleadings allowed (R. 36 RoP) because of decision of the State Intellectual Property Office in Beijing of 6 January 2025 declaring the Chinese patent CN201480013981 invalid. There are no apparent reasons as to why the request to grant the opportunity to submit a further written statement was not submitted until more than six weeks after the decision of the State Intellectual Property Office. 

IPPT20250205, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
New arguments on infringement in Rejoinder by Hurom are inadmissible as not addressing matters raised in the Reply (R. 32(3) RoP). Hurom’s request for further exchange of written pleadings allowed because of new arguments raised by defendants (R. 36 RoP) without affecting the timeframe of the proceedings (Interim Conference is scheduled for 11 March 2025).

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Instead of staying the proceedings, the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaims is extended to 27.2.2025 (R. 9 RoP, R. 295 RoP) because of oral hearing in the EPO appeals proceedings scheduled for 13 February 2025: [...]. Possibility of further exchange of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) On a reasoned request by the other parties, both the plaintiff and the other defendants, they may be granted a period within which to submit their observations on the EPO's decision, in accordance with the procedural faculty provided for in Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure. It follows that the solution adopted does not violate the adversarial principle and complies with the equality of the parties in the right of defence;

IPPT20241211, UPC CFI, LD Paris, DexCom v Abbott
Inadmissible new added matter ground for revocation raised in Rejoinder to the reply to the Statement of Defence inadmissible (R. 9.2 RoP). Order by the judge-rapporteur allowing further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) relates to adding some arguments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise ABBOTT to raise a new ground for revocation. The UPC procedure is a front-loaded system and the Court finds no legitimate reason to allow a new ground for revocation to be raised at a later stage of the proceedings concerning the validity of the patent as granted, even if such an order would have allowed the other party to respond to the new grounds. 

IPPT20241129, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Defendant’s submissions in the brief of 28 November 2024 will be disregarded (R. 36 RoP). The Defendants did not make a reasoned request and the judge-rapporteur did not allow further written submissions to be exchanged. 
 

IPPT20241030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Request rejected to allow further written submissions regarding new product version (‘Barryvox S’) (R. 36 RoP). Time available until the date of the oral hearing (26 November 2024) clearly insufficient for (i) further legal classification and treatment thereof, as well as (ii) a reasonable period of time for the defendants response and (iii) sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.

IPPT20241030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Further written pleading rejected (R. 36 RoP). Would lead to a delay in the proceedings. In view of the oral hearing, which is already scheduled for December, such a delay would be unacceptable to both the Court and the Defendants. The Claimant’s right to be heard is not unduly restricted by the rejection. New factual allegations in the Rejoinder may be rejected (R. 9(2) RoP). If accepted the Claimant will be given the opportunity to respond to the Defendants’ new allegations in the Rejoinder during the interim procedure, but at the latest during the oral hearing. 

IPPT20240821, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama France
All parts of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defence of HP, except point 3 and related exhibits, excluded as inadmissible: not limited to a response to the matters raised in the Reply to the Statement of defence (Rule 29(c) RoP). If HPDC considered that new arguments on the infringement claim justified an additional exchange, it was up to it to request this from the Judge-Rapporteur by means of a reasoned request on Rule 36 RoP. It is clear from R 12 RoP that the Rules of Procedure have divided the written procedure into several successive streams. These flows, accompanied by strict deadlines, have been designed to ensure the most efficient and economical procedure possible before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the preamble. Full repetition of arguments does not help the court make better decisions. Full repetition of the arguments is superfluous, tends to increase the number of pages of the pleadings (to date more than 1,760 pages […]) which does not help the judges to give a decision of the highest quality as provided for in point 6 of the RoP preamble.