Rule 12 – Exchange of written pleadings (infringement action)

Print this page

1. The written procedure shall consist of:

(a) the lodging of a Statement of claim (by the claimant) [Rule 13];

(b) the lodging of a Statement of defence (by the defendant) [Rules 23 and 24]; and, optionally

(c) the lodging of a Reply to the Statement of defence (by the claimant) [Rule 29(b)]; and

(d) the lodging of a Rejoinder to the Reply (by the defendant) [Rule 29(c)]. 2. The Statement of defence may include a Counterclaim for revocation [Rule 25.1].

3. If a Counterclaim for revocation is lodged:

(a) the claimant and any proprietor who becomes a party pursuant to Rule 25.2 (hereinafter in this Rule 12 and Rules 29 to 32, “the proprietor”) shall lodge a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation [Rule 29(a)], which may include an Application to amend the patent by the proprietor [Rule 30];

(b) the defendant may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim [Rule 29(d)]; and

(c) the claimant and the proprietor may lodge a Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim [Rule 29(e)].

4. If an Application to amend the patent is lodged by the proprietor, the defendant shall lodge a Defence to the Application to amend the patent in the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim, the proprietor may lodge a Reply to the Defence to the Application to amend and the defendant may lodge a Rejoinder to such Reply [Rule 32].

5. The judge-rapporteur may allow the exchange of further written pleadings, within time periods to be specified [Rule 36].

 

IPPT20240124, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen
No automatic right for Claimant to reply to Rejoinder by Defendant (Rule 12 RoP, Rule 43 RoP). Generally, fixed framework of written submissions and front-loaded character of the UPC proceedings designed to conduct UPC proceedings in an efficient, proportionate, fair and equitable way. Request allowable: a bona fide attempt to respond concisely to new points made for the first time in the last written submission. No right Defendant to react to reply: right to be heard does not entail that there should be yet another exchange between the parties. Defendant has the right to be heard at the oral hearing. 

Back