Rule 51 – Reply to Defence to revocation

Within two months of service of the Defence to revocation the claimant may lodge a Reply to the Defence to revocation together with any Defence to an Application to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 43.3 and 55 as well as any Defence to the Counterclaim for infringement pursuant to Rule 56.1, if applicable.

Case Law

Court of First Instance

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
No late filed arguments in Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence for revocation regarding skilled person and claim construction (R. 52 RoP). A generous standard is to be applied. Defendant allowed, in light of the principle of fairness, to raise new arguments, facts, and documents, insofar as they are considered capable of supporting their stances, which were already timely taken and disputed by the claimant. The admissibility of these late filed arguments extends also to arguments that, while not constituting a direct response to the defendant’s arguments, are closely related to them. No late filed new evidence: to contrast and react to arguments raised in the Defence to revocation (R. 44 RoP, R. 51 RoP) following the defence raised by the defendant, the claimant may need to produce new evidence which disputes the facts alleged by the claimant or the probative value of the evidence already filed in Court. Similarly, the defendant may submit new evidence in reaction to facts or evidence produced by the claimant in its reply. 

IPPT20241129, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products
Reply to Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to revocation inadmissible (R. 51 RoP, R. 52 RoP).