Rule 114 – Adjournment where the Court considers that further evidence is required

In exceptional cases, the Court may, after hearing the parties’ oral submissions, decide to adjourn proceedings and call for further evidence.

Case Law

IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripatal Limited v Keysight Technologies
No reopening of oral hearing nor call for further evidence warranted (Rule 114 RoP.). It is not a tool to present new infringement allegations after the closure of the oral hearing.
 

IPPT20240917, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope
Request after conclusion of interim conference to hear party expert as a witness at the oral hearing rejected (R. 110 RoP, R. 181 RoP). Should the submission, if deemed admissible, be relevant and the court consider it necessary to examine the party-appointed expert, this will have to be discontinued as part of a decision pursuant to Rule 114 RoP.