Rule 9 – Powers of the Court

1. The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, of its own motion or on a reasoned request by a party, make a procedural order such as to order a party to take any step, answer any question or provide any clarification or evidence, within time periods to be specified.

2. The Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit set by the Court or these Rules.

3. Subject to paragraph 4, on a reasoned request by a party, the Court may:
(a) extend, even retrospectively, a time period referred to in these Rules or imposed by the Court; and
(b) shorten any such time period.

4. The Court shall not extend the time periods referred to in Rules 198.1, 213.1 and 224.1.

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20241009, UPC CoA, Eoflow v Insulet
Request for expedition of the appeal admissible but unfounded (R. 9.3(b) RoP, R. 235 RoP). EOFlow has not sufficiently substantiated, and the Court of Appeal fails to see, why it was necessary for EOFlow to await the decision of the Central Division on Menarini’s request for intervention, before filing the present request. By nevertheless doing so and taking ten days to file its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal and this request, an order of the Court of Appeal would only be possible prior to the aforementioned oral hearings if Insulet would be given substantially less time for filing its response. The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that EOFlow has thus by filing its request at an unnecessary late point of time, insufficiently taken into account the interests of Insulet.

IPPT20240906, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
Request for expedition of appeals rejected (Rule 9.3(b) RoP). Possibility that the Munich Local Division might grant an injunction on the basis of a patent that has been upheld by the Court of First Instance but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeals. The Munich Local Division has various means at its disposal to mitigate the risk of granting an injunction or the harm caused by such an injunction, in situations where the validity of the patent is subject to appeals. Furthermore, the requested expedition cannot prevent the alleged harm to Meril from an injunction given that in the proposed expedited timetable the oral hearing in the appeal is scheduled for mid-January 2025 and the oral hearing in the infringement proceedings has been scheduled for 24 September 2024. 

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)

IPPT20240730, UPC CoA, Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepsis
No expedition of the appeal (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 220(1) RoP)(Rule 235 RoP) Due account must be given to the principles of due process, among which equality of arms. The Court of Appeal does not consider that the circumstances of the present case are so urgent that the interests of the appellant outweigh those of the respondent. The appellant’s arguments that it is seeking patent protection as soon as possible and that the appeal concerns a purely legal issue, are not sufficient to shorten the time limit for lodging the statement of response. This time period is already relatively short for appeals against orders referred to in R. 220.1(c) RoP, such as the present appeal, namely only 15 days. The fact that the appellant did not make use of the entire time period within which it could have lodged its statement of grounds of appeal, does not lead to a different assessment.

IPPT20240726, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Allowability of auxiliary requests to be argued and decided at the oral hearing (Rule 263 RoP). In view thereof, time extension for Statement of response reasonable, also taking into account the summer holiday period (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 235 RoP).

IPPT20240711, UPC CoA, Apple v Ona
Motion to expedite appeal denied (Rule 9(3)(b) RoP, Rule 235(2) RoP). No particular interest shown by Apple. Having regard to Ona's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, and taking into account the above reasons and the time Apple has taken to file its statement of grounds of appeal - which is significantly longer than the time Ona is to be given to file its Statement of response - the Court of Appeal is unable to see any reason for shortening the time limit for Ona to file its statement of defence as requested by Apple.

IPPT20240707, UPC CoA, ARM v ICPillar
Deadline extension and confidentiality club. Time period for lodging Statement of response extended with 15 days after unredacted version of Exhibit 4 has been made available to ARM’s representatives (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 262A RoP, Rule 235).

IPPT20240619, UPC CoA, ICPillar v ARM
Request to expedite appeal rejected (Rule 9(3) RoP). The circumstances of the present case are not of such an urgent nature that the interests of ICPillar outweigh the interest of ARM and the principles of due process. 

IPPT20240522, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST

IPPT20240522, UPC CoA, Audi v NST

IPPT20240522, UPC CoA, Texas Instruments v NST

Request by the Appellants to expedite the appeal against an order in which an application for security for costs was dismissed and shorten any deadlines where possible is denied for being too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated. (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 224(2)(b) RoP).

IPPT20240403, UPC CoA, Juul Labs v NJOY Netherlands
Appeal and the appellant’s request to set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance to rectify the name of the defendant (“Juul Labs, Inc”) to read “Juul Labs International, Inc.” rejected [Rule 9 RoP]. If the claimant has not correctly named the defendant in the statement initiating the proceedings, the Court may allow the claimant to rectify the error. The request can be granted if the defendant is not unreasonably prejudiced by the incorrect statement of name and its rectification. As a rule, there will be no unreasonable prejudice if, despite the incorrect statement of name, it must have been clear to the defendant and to the Court, based on the circumstances of the case, that the claimant intended the statement for revocation to be directed against the defendant. No decision on costs. Rule 242.1 RoP is to be interpreted to mean that if the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a final order or decision concluding an action, the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, will not issue an order for costs in respect of the proceedings at first instance and at appeal. However, the outcome of the appeal must be considered when, in the final decision on the action at hand, the Court determines whether and to what extent a party must bear the costs of the other party because it was unsuccessful within the meaning of Article 69 UPCA.

Court of First Instance

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. 

IPPT20241120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
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)

IPPT20241120, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, DexCom v Abbott
Claimants’ time limit for filing Rejoinder to Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to conditional application to amend extended on grounds of fairness and equity, since the previous time limit was, with the consent of the Claimant, extended to a similar extent in favour of the Defendants. (R. 9 RoP, R. 29(e) RoP , R. 32.3(1) RoP)

IPPT20241118, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Malikie v Nintendo
Rectification of the name of Defendant 1) granted (R. 9 RoP, R. 272 RoP). The date of service on Nintendo of Europe SE is determined to be effected 17 October. Based on the facts, there was no doubt that it had been clear to the Nintendo of Europe SE that the statement of claim was intended to be directed against it as the present and sole successor of Nintendo of Europe AG.

IPPT20241115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Late filed request (R. 9.2 RoP). Defendants request of 16 October 2024 that the court asks questions to the European Commission rejected because it is late filed. After oral hearing held on 24 September 2024, without the court allowing any post-hearing submission

IPPT20241030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Further written pleading rejected (R. 36 RoP). Would lead to a delay in the proceedings.  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. 

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Munich, SES-imagotag v Hanshow 
Costs for the appeal instance rejected due to failure to comply with the time limit. (R. 151 RoP, R. 320 RoP, R. 9(3) RoP). Re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, as a lex specialis, takes precedence over Rule 9.3 (a) RoP.

IPPT20241011, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Truma v CAN
No extension of time period for lodging Preliminary objection or Statement of defence (R. 9(3) RoP, R. 19 RoP, R. 23 RoP). Not justified by an alleged ineffectiveness of the service of process at the trade fair: both the start of the time period for filing a Preliminary objection and the time period for filing a Statement of defence are linked to the service of the Statement of claim

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. Requests for allocation of concerning applications for time extension will be decided in the final decision on the merits (R. 118.5)

IPPT20240927, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
No further written pleadings following appeal (R. 9 RoP, R. 12 RoP). The order of the Court of Appeal dated 25 September 2024 provides no reason for the admission of further written pleadings in the main proceedings.

IPPT20240917, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Retrospective extension of the time period for lodging counterclaim for infringement because of malfunction of CMS (R. 9(3) RoP, R. 49 RoP). 

IPPT20240909, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips IP v Belkin
Postponement  of oral hearing (R. 9 RoP, R. 108 RoP). Upon request of the parties and after consultation of the panel the date of the oral hearing is postponed from 11 September 2024 to 23 October 2024 because of postponement of the decision date in parallel proceedings from  6 September 2024 to 13 September 2024.

IPPT20240902, UPC CFI, President, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Application for review of the allocation of technically qualified judge dismissed (Rule 9.1 RoP, Rules 33-34 RoP). The technically qualified judge is one of the judges of the panel as defined in Articles 19 and 20 UPCA (concerning the Court of First Instance) and the legal texts governing the UPC do not provide the opportunity for the parties to “make suggestion regarding (…) the technical or other relevant background” of one of the judges allocated to the panel, unlike in the case of the appointment of a court expert (R 185.2 RoP). 

IPPT20240725, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Xiaomi v Daedalus
No convincing reasons for time limit extensions (Rule 9.3(a) RoP)(Rule 262A RoP). Necessary coordination with suppliers based outside Europe is not a convincing reason for an exceptional extension of the time. Neither that  exchange of technical information is subject to very restrictive confidentiality obligations imposed on the defendants 3) and 4). this does not justify the requested extension. The RoP do provide especially for that purpose a possibility for the protection of confidential information in R. 262A RoP, which can be used parallel with the lodging of the statement of defence. Counterclaim for revocation concerns technical questions that are most likely independent of any possible confidentiality obligations.

IPPT20240724, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Video recordings exceeding the maximum size for exhibits to be uploaded to the CMS can be submitted on a USB stick as so-called “physical exhibit” (with a detailed ‘how to’-instruction by the judge-rapporteur) (Article 53 UPCA, Rule 4 RoP, Rule 9 RoP).

IPPT20230719, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
No suspension of the predetermined deadlines written procedure granted (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 29 RoP). The Rules of Procedure do not provide for a suspension of the predetermined deadlines during the written procedure either after the submission of a Procedural Request, or after the submission of a Request for Review by the panel or after the initiation of an appeal against such review by the panel. A request for suspension can further only be granted if it is proportionate and the balancing of interests of the parties warrants it. This may be the case, for example, if the Defendants' rights of defence are seriously impaired and this is weighed against the Plaintiff's interests, in particular its interest in proceeding expeditiously. 

IPPT20240710, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Orope
Lodging written pleadings and confidentiality club. Inadmissible lodging of a redacted “unredacted version” of the Reply (Rule 9(2) RoP, Rule 29 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). An exception be made because the problem is being addressed by the Unified Patent Court for the first time. Time limit for filing a rejoinder in the infringement action does not start to run until the defendants have been served with a fully unredacted Reply to the Statement of defence (Rule 29(c) RoP). Time limits for the counterclaim and the (alternative) amendment of the patent must be considered separately and have started running. Extension denied. 

IPPT20230708, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
Amendment of case in Statement of Reply in response to the Statement of Defence with new facts, infringement arguments (equivalence) and claim permitted (Rule 263 RoP, Rule 13 RoP): consistent with the normative purpose of R. 13 RoP and, fitting into the procedurally-evolutive course of a judicial dispute. Deadline extension for Rejoinder to Statement of Reply with 2 weeks proportionate, reasonable and equitable (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP, Rule 29)(c) RoP). Extended period does not affect Claimant's rights, nor does it affect the further procedural calendar already determined in this case (specifically, the dates of the interim conference and pleading date).

IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Case management order (Article 43 UPCA, Rule 9(1) RoP, Rule 101(1) RoP). Incorporation by reference of the instructions in parallel proceedings regarding the same patent Incorporation by reference of the instructions in parallel proceedings regarding the same patent (IPPT20240627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope). Instructions regarding issues to be discussed related to added subject matter, priority and inventive step. Application to amend the patent and a reservation to respond with further amendments? (Rule 30(2) RoP). The question of whether a new amendment will be allowed will have to take into account whether the new amendment would have been necessary at an earlier stage in response to the arguments already submitted by the plaintiff for revocation and whether the late request for amendment will cause delays in the proceedings. In particular, the patent proprietor must provide detailed reasons as to why the later amendment is necessary.

IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Xiaomi v Panasonic II
Confidentiality regime (Rule 262A RoP) and extensions for filing pleadings (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 29 RoP). The time limit for filing a Rejoinder shall only run from the date on which the defendants have been served with a completely unredacted Reply. This shall not affect the running of the time limits for the submission of pleadings relating to the Counterclaim for revocation and relating to the (auxiliary) requests for amendment of the patent.

IPPT20240704, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Xiaomi v Panasonic I
Time limit for filing Rejoinder to the Statement of Reply  does not start to run until the fully unredacted Reply is available (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 29 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). Time limits regarding the revocation counterclaim and the (alternative) amendment of the patent run independent therefrom. Revocation is independent from FRAND-defence.

IPPT20240703, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kaldewei v Bette

Retroactive extension of deadline from 13 May 2024 to 15 May 2024 for submission of sketches or documents to refer to at the hearing of 16 may 2024 rejected (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP). Firstly, such an application must be made at the latest at the same time as the substantive submission for which the party is requesting the retroactive extension of the deadline. If such an application is filed later - as is the case here - it has no prospect of success from the outset. Secondly, the application should not be granted because the missed deadline served to ensure the proper preparation of the oral hearing by the international panel.

IPPT20240627, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care
No extension of time period for filing rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation because of new prior art submitted in reply to defence to revocation or because of attack by counterclaim for revocation before Hamburg Local Division (Rule 9(3) RoP). The Court may extend a deadline set by the Rules of Procedures only in case a party alleges and gives evidence that it will not be able or was not able to meet it because of a fact that makes the submission of a document or the arrangement of an adequate content of a pleading in the due time objectively impossible or very difficult.

IPPT20240627, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope
Case management order. The following information and questions have been sent to the parties by the judge-rapporteur in order to structure the further proceedings (Article 43 UPCA, Rule 9(1) RoP, Rule 101(1) RoP). In case of technically complex subject-matter statements on the interpretation of features of the asserted patent claim which are not readily understandable by themselves must already be made in the statement of claim (Rule 13(1)(n) RoP). Here: Location of reference signals for determining the uplink channel quality in an available transmission bandwidth to avoid interference with control channels in the context of LTE standardisation. In the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation, the patent proprietor must base his argumentation on specific features of the patent claim (Rule 29A RoP). The plaintiff's statements in the reply to the counterclaim are not clearly recognisable in relation to the individual features - this must be made up for. It is insufficient to deal with the defendant's arguments without a clear reference to the features of the asserted claim, without it being clearly recognisable why a specific feature of the claim is not covered by the prior art disclosure. Rule 30(2) RoP is a strict rule of preclusion which allows subsequent requests for amendment of the patent only with the permission of the court. Corresponding requests must be substantiated in detail. When assessing whether a new amendment is permitted, it will be important to consider whether the new amendment would have been necessary at an earlier stage in response to the invalidity plaintiff's arguments and whether the late request for amendment causes delays in the proceedings. Defendants will have to clarify what the current version of the FRAND counterclaim (seeking a FRAND licence rate determination and/or a declaratory judgemen) is aimed at.

IPPT20240627, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Time limit for filing reply to Statement of defence which includes a Counterclaim for revocation extended to two months from the date of access to unredacted information under confidentiality regime (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 29(a) RoP, Rule 262A RoP). Need to consult with employees of patent pool related to FRAND objections that relate to a definable part of a statement; interest of effective proceedings and preventing a permanent divergence of time limits if the conduct of the oral hearing is not jeopardised by an extension of the time limit relating to the entire statement.

IPPT20240624, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v Asus
Time limit for filing reply to Statement of defence which includes a Counterclaim for revocation extended to within two months of access to unredacted information under confidentiality regime (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 29(a) RoP, Rule 262A RoP).

IPPT20240515, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Motorola
Deadline for filing Preliminary objection by defendants 3-5 is extended by agreement from 13/05/2024 to 17/05/2024 (the deadline for defendants 1-2) (Rule 9.3 RoP, Rule 19.1 RoP). If all parties agree on the request, the request must generally be granted unless there are serious reasons to the contrary. No reasons to the contrary are apparent in the present case.

IPPT20240509, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NEC V TCL
Plaintiff ordered to amend the statement of claim within 10 days by providing the correct HEVC standard (Rule 9 RoP). This can be done by filing an amended version of the statement of claim. In doing so, the plaintiff may also amend any other information that will facilitate service on defendants 2, 5 and 7.

IPPT20240506, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Photon Wave v Seoul Viosys
An intervening party may not develop claims contrary to those of the party it is supporting (Rule 313 RoP, Rule 9 RoP) and may not independently develop claims and procedural methods distinct from those offered to the party it is supporting. PHOTON WAVE did not file a counterclaim for invalidity within the same time limit expiring on March 18, 2024, […]. PHOTON WAVE cannot therefore claim to be entitled to file such a counterclaim when it failed to act within the time limit and when it does not invoke any serious grounds justifying the granting of additional time.

IPPT20240502, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Nokia v Mala Technologies
Preliminary objection against jurisdiction of the UPC because of ‘lis pendens’ with German revocation action rejected (Rule 19.1(a) RoP, Article 71c Brussels I, Article 83 UPCA). Lis pendens rules of Article 71c(2) Brussels I Reg recast do not apply  to a case in which the lawsuit before the national German court was brought two years before the beginning of the transitional period. No stay of UPC revocation action possible because of pending German revocation proceedings. Article 30 (1) Brussels I Reg recast is not applicable and in accordance with Art. 33 (10) UPCA and Rule 295 RoP, the UPC may only stay its proceedings in cases involving EPO opposition proceedings when a swift decision is anticipated from the EPO. No time extension for lodging Statement of defence to revocation because of preliminary objection (Rule 49.1 RoP, Rule 9.3 RoP). 

IPPT20240105, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Keestrack v Geha Laverman
Delay in response considered timely filed (Rule 9.2 RoP). The delay in the respondent's response is apparently due to problems with CMS, and does not affect the applicant's legal position (other than delay). The response is therefore considered timely filed in this case, also given the timely submission by email. Withdrawal of proceedings pursuant to a settlement (Rule 265 RoP, Rule 11 RoP). 

IPPT20240409, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
Extension of deadline to file Statement of Defence with three weeks rejected (Rule 9(3) RoP). Deadline to submit a written submission should not be extended lightly and should only be granted in circumstances that justify such extension. Defendants have failed to substantiate – other than with a general reference to ‘fair trial’– why the language change one month before the deadline for filing the SoD, in the circumstances of this case makes that the these defendants will not be able to meet the deadline of 26 April, 2024, or are actually hindered in that respect. 

IPPT20240408, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
No access to written report and any other outcome of the measures to inspect premises and to preserve evidence and revocation of the measures to preserve evidence because applicant did not timely start proceedings on the merits (Article 60(9) UPCA, Rule 198 RoP, Rule 9(4) RoP). 

IPPT20240404, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Exceptional extension of time period to file Reply to the Statement of defence, Counterclaim for revocation and an amendment of the patent from 6 April 2024 until 28 May 2024. Due to restriction of access to pleading because of Protection of confidential information order access to the information in question to the party's employees with the relevant knowledge was granted for the first time on 27 March 2024 (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20240313, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Laser Components v Seoul Viosys
Request for extension of time limit for filing Statement of defense by Laser Components because of coordination of a joint defence with intervening party Photon Wave dismissed (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 316A RoP). The plaintiff must not suffer from the procedural choices made by the defendant who has decided to call the intervener into question. The parties before the Unified Patent Court are aware that the time limits are strictly limited and must be diligent in their approaches so that the Court's operation is both fair and efficient, in accordance with the principles of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure, in articles 2 and 4. Accordingly, the defendant cannot legitimately rely on the fact that an intervention is in progress; it is being conducted in parallel with the main action and there is no justification for it delaying the proceedings.

IPPT20240227, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen
Interim report after interim hearing in relation to combing actions (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 101 RoP). Request for interim conference after interim hearing rejected in view of the opportunity to be heard in relation to its requests and the combining of both actions at the present hearing. Case management instructions in relation to combining the actions in preparation for oral procedure to provide that all parties are “on the same page” where it concerns the grounds for revocation, arguments, facts and evidence. Value of proceedings set at 100 million euro in accordance with agreement between the parties (article 36 UPCA). Reasonable and proportionate costs recoverable up to a ceiling of 2 million euro in accordance with table published by the Administrative Committee (article 69 UPCA). Court and parties must have access to information showing at least a detailed description of the number of hours spent working on this particular case, by whom, what for and at what rate. The same applies to any expenses incurred. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties that the Court will, in principle, respect an agreement between the parties on the amount of costs that is deemed reasonable and proportionate. Use of slides during oral hearing of 4 June 2024 (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 112 RoP). Use of reasonable number of slides as demonstratives, which may not introduce any new facts or substance to the case, permitted; to be submitted by all parties by 7 May 2024 at the latest. Both parties are to include with the slides a table indicating exactly where in the pleadings/evidence already on file the contents of the slides can be found.

IPPT20240223, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience II
Set time limit of 1 March 2024 for replying to defendant’s statement of objection not extended to the conclusion of the confidentiality procedure of Rule 262A RoP (Rule 9(3) RoP). The redacted version of the statement of objection was already available to all representatives of the applicant as well as to the applicant itself on 15 February 2024. Only access to the unredacted version was restricted. The information classified as confidential by the defendant only concerns a very limited part of the statement of objection. Moreover, it is exclusively of a non-technical and purely commercial nature. It is not apparent from the grounds for the request for an extension of the time limit that, and if so for what reasons, the applicant is not in a position to reply to the statement of objection within the time limit set.

IPPT20240221, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Claimants’ requests for a decision by default against the defendants in the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 355 (1)(a), 277 RoP and for a rejection of the Counterclaims for revocation is rejected. Time limits for filing the Statement of defence and the Counterclaim for revocation extended to 7 February 2024, as it was not possible to upload the Counterclaim for revocation on 6 February 2024 for internal technical reasons (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 25(1) RoP). Although the Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim for revocation, the parties shall make use of the official forms available online (Rule 4(1) RoP). In practice, this means that the Counterclaim for revocation must also be filed in the workflow provided for this purpose by the CMS. Only when this requirement has been met is the Counterclaim for revocation properly filed. Where the defendant has filed a Statement of defence in due time in accordance with the requirements of Rule 25.1 RoP, the time limit for filing the Counterclaim for revocation in the dedicated workflow of the CMS may be extended retrospectively upon request (Rule 9.3 (a) RoP) and subject to the following conditions: Firstly, the defendant must have already made a first attempt to file the Counterclaim for revocation in due time in the workflow provided for this purpose before the expiry of the time limit. Secondly, the defendant must have uploaded the Counterclaim for revocation to the correct workflow without culpable delay after the expiry of the deadline.

IPPT20240220, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Roche Diabetes Care v Tandem Diabetes Care
No extension of deadline (Rule 9(3) RoP): no objective impossibility to meet deadline. No allegation, nor let alone evidence, of a difficulty in arranging a proper defence, rather the possibility that the submissions of pleadings in due time may be useless in case the Court will allow the preliminary objection. The power to extend the time limit should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases (see UPC CFI 412/2023 CD Paris, order of 9 February 2024). It follows that the Court may extend a deadline set by the Rules of Procedures only in case a party alleges and gives evidence that it will not be able or was not able to meet it because of a fact that makes the submission of a document or the arrangement of an adequate content of a pleading in the due time objectively impossible or very difficult. 

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Dexcom v Abbott

IPPT20240212, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Extension and alignment of deadline for filling Statement of Defence by multiple defendants in accordance with agreement between the parties at case management hearing, which is considered reasonable by the judge-rapporteur (Rule 9(3) RoP, Rule 23 RoP, Rule 334 RoP).

IPPT20240209, UPC CFI, CD Paris, ITCiCo Spain v Bayerische Motoren Werke
Request to extend time limit for filing Defence to revocation rejected (Rule 9 RoP, RoP 49 RoP). An impossibility or an extreme difficulty to meet the deadline which is attributable to the party requesting the extension of the deadline or its representative does not come into consideration, as it may not be deemed as objective. Principle of fair trial obliges a party to submit a request for time extension as soon as it appears clear that the meeting of the deadline will not be possible. Difficulties with smart card verification device and illness of patent attorney devoid of evidence. A party's representative waiting for the smart card verification device after the service of the statement of claim (and the reception of the information concerning the lodging of the revocation action) is expected to seek a solution in an appropriate time and act accordingly (for example, by submitting requests to the Court or the Registry)

IPPT20240127, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
Synchronisation of time limits for Reply to Statement of defence in infringement action and for filing Statement of defence in revocation action: start to run on 15 January 2024 (Rule 9 RoP). Plaintiffs were only able to discuss the statement of defence with the confirmed group of recipients without restriction at all from 15 January 2024 onwards due to the defendant's request for confidentiality. This information is undoubtedly an integral part of the statement of defence.

IPPT20240122, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY Netherlands v VMR Products

The judge-rapporteur is not to inform a party (even upon request) of the exact deadline provided for by statutory rules before its expires, nor to give the interpretation of statutory provisions or the assessment of facts during the course of a proceedings where it may be helpful to one of the parties. (Rule 9 RoP). Would lead to an advisory role, which is contrary to the principles of judicial impartiality (Article 17 UPCA) and of the right of a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). All written pleadings, including the defence to revocation, are deemed to be served on the day when the relevant electronic message was sent (Rule 278(4) RoP; Rule 271(6)(a) RoP)

IPPT20240120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce
Extending time periods  (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP) only to be used with caution and only justified in exceptional cases (see: UPC_CFI_475/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), Anordnung v. 19. Januar 2024). No exceptional case: that access to the CMS was not possible "over a longer period of time" is not a sufficient reason for an extension of the deadline for filing the statement of defence and the counterclaim as an exception. The statement of claim, including the annexes, was served on the defendants in paper form. Neither submitted nor apparent that the defendants were unable to upload their pleadings to the CMS in due time due to technical reasons.

IPPT20240119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dolby v HP
Extending time periods (Rule 9(3)(a) RoP) only to be used with caution and only justified in exceptional cases. Exceptional case: action directed against 15 defendants of which, to date, only three have been served; currently not possible to predict how much time serving others will take; willingness for defendants' representatives to be appointed for all defendants will considerably simplify the conduct of the proceedings and thus also in the interests of the plaintiff; slight extension of the opposition and defence periods requested [..] leads  to a uniform time limit and therefore appears appropriate; assurance by  defendants' representatives of agreement with extension of the time limit.

IPPT20240117, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Ex officio order judge-rapporteur to extend deadline to file Defence in the Counterclaim for revocation and to reunite the claim and counterclaim workflows (Rule 9(3 RoP, Rule 311(1) RoP, Rule 334(a) RoP). Defence to the counterclaim for revocation not filed together with Reply to defence in the claim as required by Rule 29(a) RoP. The apparent misunderstanding of the relevant deadline [for Statement of defence to counterclaim for revocation] by Plant-e Knowledge will in this situation not be held against her; the consequences would be disproportionate.

IPPT20240103, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips IP v Belkin
Extension of time period for lodging Reply extended by one week until 15 January 2024 (Rule 9 RoP). The written reasons for the nullity judgment of the Bundespatentgericht of August 2023 were only served on 22 December 2023 and a precise analysis of the reasons for the judgment was made difficult by the Christmas holidays. Furthermore, the shortening of the nullity rejoinder period by one week offered by the plaintiff will not result in any overall delay in the proceedings.

IPPT20240102, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis
Deadline for commenting on provisional dates for interim conference extended as the overall handling of the case will not be affected at all or not much by granting the extension. Rule 9 RoP workflow is to be used for request to extend time period.  Counsel for defendants used the main workflow for this request. He should have used a Rule 9 workflow (Rule 4.1 RoP). Consequence is that defendants can no longer comment on the provisional dates within the main workflow. The judge-rapporteur has therefore started this workflow.

IPPT20231218, UPC CoA, OPPO v Panasonic 

IPPT20231219, UPC CoA, OPPO v Panasonic

IPPT20231220, UPC CoA, OPPO v Panasonic
Requests by Appellant for shortening the time period for filing the Statement of response by Respondent in appeal rejected; disproportionate to the time the Appellant has itself taken for the Statement of appeal (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 224 RoP). Request for expedition of appeal by Appellant after having used full 15 days for Statement of appeal, which would give Respondent only 4 working days to respond, and would require the Court of Appeal to decide the case on the very same day, without the opportunity to hear the parties, (i) insufficiently takes into account the interests of the Respondent to be given sufficient time to properly prepare its Statement of response and (ii) would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity.

IPPT20231205, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla 

Procedural order (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). The start of the plaintiff’s time period for lodging the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation is set for 8 November 2023 in line with the time limit for the Reply to the Statement of defence in the infringement action. This request had to be complied with, as such concurrence not only appears to be procedurally economical, but is also necessary with regard to the right to be heard, since the content of the statement of defence, including the protected information contained therein, is significant for the drafting of the Defence to the revocation action.  

IPPT20231204, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi

Final order based on agreement by the parties regarding Service of Statement of claim by alternative method deemed accepted (Rule 275 RoP); Extension of time to file Statement of defence granted (Rule 9 RoP). The agreement between the parties on the […] procedural issues is procedurally efficient and reasonable and should therefore be implemented.

IPPT20231127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Panasonic v Xiaomi

Preliminary order : Service of Statement of claim by alternative method (Rule 275 RoP); Extension of time to file Statement of defence (Rule 9 RoP). The Court is of the opinion that the most efficient and economically sensible course of action in the present case would be for the present counsel for Defendants 3,4,5,6,9,10 to accept service for Defendants 1, 2, 7, 8 on Defendant 3 in the context of the motion under (Rule 275.2 RoP). As a concession, the time limit for responding to the action could - subject to a statement by the plaintiff - be set uniformly until 31 January 2024. The application for an extension of time for defendants 3,4,5,6,9,10 would then be interpreted as also including an application for an extension of time for defendants 1, 2, 7,8.

IPPT20230828, UPC CFI, LD Helsinki, AIM Sport Vision v Supponor
Procedural order in main proceedings and provisional measures proceedings concerning issues to be addressed in written submissions, invitation to an oral hearing in front of the whole panel, including a technically qualified judge, and instructions regarding oral hearing.

IPPT20230823, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril

Rule 9 RoP: An intended harmonisation of the time-limit regime as such does not constitute a reason for an extension of the time-limit that runs for the opponent who was successfully served at an earlier point in time. Rather, harmonisation can also be achieved by shortening the time limit for the opponent who was only served at a later point in time. Working with the new procedural law and the CMS poses considerable challenges for all parties involved. Therefore, in the initial period, a practicable handling of the challenges that arise is required. The judge-rapporteur therefore exercises the discretion granted by the Rules of Procedure to grant the request by way of exception. Moreover, the defendant (= applicant) has agreed to the request for an extension of time.

IPPT20230822, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla

Rule 9 RoP: No convincing reasons for extending three months time period for lodging statement of defence. The time limit for filing oppositions under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already calculated in such a way that, for international patent disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court, it allows for a clarification of the facts and an internal coordination of the proceedings and internal coordination, even during holiday periods. Moreover, in the present case, the time limit for filing the statement of opposition already amounts to three months and six days for the first defendant and three months and eight days for the second defendant without the requested extension of the time limit due to the calculation of the time limit pursuant to Rule 271.6(b) in conjunction with 271.4(a) of the Rules of Procedure. Reference is made to the calculation of the time limit communicated by the judge-rapporteur in his order of 10 August 2023. The fact that certain central contact persons at the defendants and the suppliers could not be reached during the vast majority of the deadline period due to holidays is neither apparent nor asserted by the defendants.

IPPT20230810, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril

The prevention of a divergence of the deadlines for lodging a preliminary objection (Rule 19) is not necessary per se. [...]. However, it should be noted that working with the new procedural law and case management system (CMS) poses significant challenges to all parties involved. Therefore, a practicable handling of the challenges that arise is required in the initial period. The Rapporteur exercises the discretion granted by the Rules of Procedure to grant the application by way of exception.