Rule 52 – Rejoinder to the Reply

Within one month of the service of the Reply the defendant may lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to revocation together with any Reply to the Defence to an Application to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 43.3 and 55 as well as any Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for infringement pursuant to Rule 56.3, if applicable. The Rejoinder shall be limited to a response to the matters raised in the Reply.

Case Law

IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign 
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA ,  Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 RoP) . Infringement is assumed. Late filed non infringement arguments submitted in the rejoinder. (Article 25 (a)UPCA, Rule 52 RoP). 

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Late filed ground of invalidity (R. 44 RoP) the issue concerning the added matter in claim 7 should have [been] filed with the statement for revocation as it constitutes a new and autonomous line of attack and, therefore, it must be excluded from the subject-matter of the proceedings. 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. 

IPPT20250228, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul Labs
A generous standard is to be applied to late filed facts or evidence (R. 32 RoP, R. 52 RoP). An argument which may be considered a further reaching response to the other party’s previously raised argument is to be admitted. 

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). 

IPPT20241008, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Edwards v Meril
Request rejected to extend deadline for lodging a Rejoinder (R. 52 RoP. R. 9.3 RoP) from 16 October to 25 October, the deadline for lodging a Reply. Granting the application would allow the applicant more time to prepare their written pleadings than is ordinarily provided for by the relevant provision and this would create an imbalance between the parties, given that the claimants have already complied with the shorter, standard deadline set forth in the Rules.