Rule 44 – Contents of the Statement for revocation

The claimant shall, subject to point (b), lodge a Statement for revocation at the Registry in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Agreement and Annex II thereto. The Statement for revocation shall contain:

(a) particulars in accordance with Rule 13.1(a) to (d) and (g), (h);

(b) where the parties have agreed to bring the action before a local division or a regional division in accordance with Article 33(7) of the Agreement, an indication of the division which shall hear the action, accompanied by evidence of the defendant’s agreement;

(c) where applicable, an indication that the action shall be heard by a single judge [Article 8(7) of the Agreement], accompanied by evidence of the defendant’s agreement;

(d) an indication of the extent to which revocation of the patent is requested;

(e) one or more grounds for revocation, which shall as far as possible be supported by arguments of law, and where appropriate an explanation of the claimant’s proposed claim construction;

(f) an indication of the facts relied on;

(g) the evidence relied on, where available, and an indication of any further evidence which will be offered in support; (h) an indication of any order the claimant will seek during the interim procedure [Rule 104(e)];

and

(i) a list of the documents, including any witness statements, referred to in the Statement for revocation together with any request that all or part of any such document need not be translated and/or any request pursuant to Rule 262.2 and Rule 262A. Rule 13.2 and .3 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Case Law

IPPT20240729, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bitzer v Carrier Corporation
Claim 1 of EP ‘708 maintained as amended by auxiliary request II.  Inadmissible late-filed grounds for invalidity (Rule 44 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). New grounds for invalidity (novelty and lack of inventive step) raised in Reply to defence to revocation and Defence to the application to amend the patent, not submitted in the statement for revocation and which did not relate to the amended version of the patent are inadmissible as they are not permitted by the Rules of Procedure and, in general, are contrary to the front-loaded character of the ‘UPC’ proceedings.