Case Law
Rule 9: Powers of the Court

Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division, Order dated 25/07/2024, WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH (Case/ Registry number: App_42970/2024, ORD_43151/2024)
Example of decision on the submission of physical exhibit under the current CMS: "The defendants are informed that they can submit the video recordings (referred to in the statement of defense of July 18, 2024 as Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) on a USB stick as a so-called “physical exhibit” because the size of the video recordings exceeds the maximum size for exhibits to be uploaded to the CMS. However, a specific procedure has to be followed in order to submit a physical exhibit to a written pleading. If a physical exhibit to a written pleading is to be submitted, the CMS provides that a “physical exhibit description” is uploaded to the CMS together with the respective pleading instead of the exhibit itself. This is necessary because otherwise the physical exhibit submitted by mail cannot be registered to the CMS. To do so, the respective party has to create a document which indicates the subject-matter of the physical exhibit to be submitted by mail. This document has to be uploaded together with the written pleading via the function “add file” in the section “Upload documents” of the workflow for uploading the written pleading and the exhibits to it. In order to add the document with the description of the physical exhibit the following settings shall be chosen:
– Document Type: “Physical exhibit description”
– Document Title: title of the respective exhibit (e.g. exhibit 1)
– Additional relevant information: type of the physical exhibit (e.g. USB stick) Since the defendants do not appear to have followed this procedure while filing their statement of defence, a subsequent physical exhibit can only be registered to the CMS if the defendants submit the respective physical exhibit as an exhibit to a separate application workflow. A separate application is required because no exhibit can be registered to the CMS without a written pleading.
To do so, the defendants shall
1. start a new R. 9-application in the main proceedings ACT_17336/2024
2. - in the section “Upload documents” –
a) upload a signed application document and select document type “application” and
b) upload a second document containing a (short) description of the physical exhibit to be submitted by using the following settings:
(1) select as document type “physical exhibit description”,
(2) select as document title the name of the respective exhibits, i.e. exhibits D 7b and D 7c to the statement of defence
(3) and (in addition) enter the type of the physical exhibit in short (in this case e.g. “USB stick containing exhibits D 7b and D 7c”) in the field “Additional relevant information”. In order to facilitate the understanding for those involved in the proceedings, the defendants could, for example, state in the signed application document that the application only serves the purpose to submit a physical exhibit to the statement of defence after having lodged the statement of defence. In the second document containing the description of the physical exhibit, the defendants could, for example, state that the exhibits D 7b and D 7c will be submitted physically on a USB stick sent by mail. The defendants shall then submit an USB stick for each defendant and the court (3 USB sticks in total) by mail."

Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division, Order dated 25/07/2024, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH (Case/ Registry number: App_42733/2024, ORD_43090/2024)
Example of decision on extension of time limit: "With regards to the statement that the exchange of technical information with MediaTek was underway but subject to very restrictive confidentiality obligations which are 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. Additionally, the arguments brought forward do not justify an extension for the deadline for filing a counterclaim for revocation as the latter concerns technical questions that are most likely independent of any possible confidentiality obligations."

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 04/07/2024, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH (Case/ Registry number: App_33754/2024, ORD_39924/2024)
Example of decision on time limit for filing a duplicate in the absence of a fully unredacted replication: "The court and the defendants do not have a completely unredacted version of the replica. The replication submitted as an "unredacted version" contains numerous redactions on pages 142-167. This approach is inadmissible, as stated in today’s order in APP_21945/2024 (see Local Chamber Mannheim, order of 13/06/2024; APP 35009/2024 and APP 35013/2024 in UPC CFI 219/2023). In the present case, because the problem is being addressed for the first time by the Unified Patent Court, an exception must be made. However, the deadline for filing a duplicate is currently not running. The time limit for filing a duplicate does not start to run until the defendants have been served with a fully unredacted replication. This is because the defendants have a right to defend themselves comprehensively, uniformly and in full knowledge of all the plaintiff’s submissions in the reply and by exhausting the time limits provided for by the Rules of Procedure, without being forced to submit applications for extensions of time with an uncertain outcome. The defendants also have the right to respond uniformly to the reply. If this were to be seen differently, the redacted parts of the duplicate would have to be regarded as not having been submitted. A later submission could then be dealt with in accordance with Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 27/06/2024, Dolby International AB (Case/ Registry number: App_36218/2024, ORD_36435/2024)
Example of decision on the extension of a time limit relating to the entire pleading: "1. If the defendant deals extensively with licence negotiations between itself and a patent pool in the context of the justification of the FRAND objection raised by it, the plaintiff can only respond comprehensively to this submission if it can consult with employees of the patent pool. If the plaintiff is initially prevented from such consultation by an application for the protection of trade secrets (R. 262A RoP), his right to be heard can be taken into account by extending his time limit for responding to this submission accordingly upon request.
2. Even if an application for the protection of trade secrets only relates to a definable part of a pleading, such as the statements on the FRAND objection, a merely partial extension of the time limit, limited to the part concerned, can be dispensed with in the interests of effective proceedings and to prevent 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 pleading."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 24/06/2024, Dolby International AB (Case/ Registry number: App_34724/2024, ORD_35903/2024)
Example of decision on the extension of time: "1. R. 9.3 (a) RoP authorises the court to extend time limits. However, this option should only be utilised with caution and only in justified exceptional cases.
3. The Rules of Procedure provide for a time limit of two months for the submission of the reply to the statement of defence containing the action for annulment (R. 29 (a) of the Rules of Procedure). This period must be available to the applicant and his representatives to jointly develop a strategy based on all the facts and to submit pleadings on the basis of this strategy.
4. The same applies to the action for annulment. The principles of fair procedure and the right to be heard require that a party must be able to reconcile its arguments on (non-)infringement with those on validity and possible amendment of the claims, especially in its first submission on validity."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 17/06/2024, AUDI AG (Case/ Registry number: App_34185/2024, ORD_36287/2024)
Example of decision on a request for lodging additional written pleadings and evidences: "Pursuant to R.36 RoP, without prejudice to the powers of the judge-rapporteur pursuant to R.110.1 RoP, a party may lodge before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure, a reasoned request that further written pleadings may be exchanged."

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 22/05/2024, AUDI AG (Case/ Registry number: App_29007/2024, ORD_29909/2024)
Example of decision on a refusal to shorten a time period: “6. Audi has not explained that and why it would have a particular interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interests of NST and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, also taking into account the time period Audi has taken to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal, see any reason to shorten the time period within which NST is to lodge its Statement of response.
7. Insofar as the further appeal proceedings are concerned, the request is too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify the shortening of any of the future time periods at this stage of the proceedings.”

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 22/05/2024, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated (Case/ Registry number: App_27157/2024, ORD_29608/2024)
Example of order on a request for expedition of the appeal and shortening the deadline to lodge a statement of response: "Texas Instruments has not explained that and why it would have a particular interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interests of NST and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, also taking into account the time period Texas Instruments have taken to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal, see any reason to shorten the time period within which NST is to lodge its Statement of response.
Insofar as the further appeal proceedings are concerned, the request is too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify the shortening of any of the future time periods at this stage of the proceedings.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 08/04/2024, Meril italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH (ORD_16799/2024)
Example of decision on the extension of the deadline to submit a written submission in proceedings before the UPC: “5. The deadline to submit a written submission in proceedings before the UPC should not be extended lightly, in view of the principle of ensuring expeditious decisions and to avoid delay, and should only be granted in circumstances that justify such extension.
6. By order of 8 February, 2024 (App_3489/2024) the term for defendants to file their SoD was extended to 26 April, 2024, with the agreement of the claimant. 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 these defendants will not be able to meet the deadline of 26 April, 2024, or are actually hindered in that respect. The JR takes into consideration, as also claimant points out, that in this case the SoD, also when it was drafted in German by counsel for defendants, would have to be made available in English as well in order to be shared with the defendants. Furthermore the time frame of one month to adjust to the language change, is considered sufficient. This is not so short that it is likely to hinder the defendants in their preparations, or in any case, this was not substantiated.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 14/03/2024, Laser Components /Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd SAS (ORD_13006/2024)
Example of decision on the refusal of an extension of the deadline: “The parties before the Unified Patent Court are aware that the time limits are strictly limited and must be diligent in their representations so that the Court’s operation is both fair and efficient, in accordance with the principles of the preamble to the RoP, in its 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 trial.”

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 23/02/2024, 10x Genomics, Inc./ Curio Bioscience Inc. (Case number: UPC_CFI_463/2023 ORD_9718/2024)
Example of decision on a request for interim measures: “By procedural order dated 16 February 2024 (ORD_8568/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Chamber set the deadline for responding to the objection as 1 March 2024. The start of the deadline is therefore the issue of the relevant order, so that there is no room for the determination of a later start of the deadline requested by the applicant. Insofar as the applicant wishes to postpone the start of the response period to the conclusion of the secrecy protection proceedings pursuant to R. 262A RoP (cf. in this regard to the main proceedings: Hamburg Local Chamber, procedural order of 28 November 2023, UPC_CFI_54/2024 and procedural order of 27 January 2024, UPC_CFI_22/2023), such a postponement of the start of the deadline is not compatible with the urgent nature of the proceedings for interim measures. This applies all the more since the secrecy protection proceedings have not yet been concluded. At present, only a provisional secrecy protection order is in force.”

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 22/02/2024, Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc / Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Registry number: App_7573/2024 ORD_9612/2024 and ORD_9613/2024)
Example of decision on a request to accelerate the appeal procedure: “In proceedings concerning an appeal against an order granting a request for leave to add claims from a further patent in the main proceedings, a request made by the applicants on the last day of the time limits under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RP to shorten the time limit under R. 9.3(b) RP for filing a statement of defence will be rejected in view of the interests of the appellee and the principles of due process, even if this might mean that in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance the statement of defence has to be filed before a decision has been rendered in the appeal proceedings..”
“The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that Netgear’s request did not take sufficient account of Huawei’s interest in a reasonable period of time to properly prepare its response to the appeal, taking into account the time Netgear itself took to prepare the grounds of appeal. Granting the request to expedite the appeal proceedings would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity that the court must take into account when applying the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal is aware that this could mean that the statement of defence in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance has to be filed before a decision has been rendered in the appeal proceedings, but considers that in the present circumstances - in particular the fact that the time limit of three months for filing the statement of defence in respect of the additional claims was set from the date on which the request for leave to amend the application was granted by the judge-rapporteur – the interests of Huawei and the principles of due process outweigh the interests of Netgear.”

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 21/02/2024, FUJIFILM Corporation/Kodak GmbH a. o. (Case number UPC_CFI_355/2023 ORD_7103/2024)
Example of decision on the request to extend retrospectively the time limit for filing the counterclaim for revocation: “The time limit for filing the Counterclaim for revocation was not observed in the present case. Although the Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim for revocation, the parties shall make use of the official forms available online (R. 25.1, R. 4.1 S. 2 RoP; UPC_CFI_8414/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 15 February 2024; UPC_CFI_9/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 3 Oktober 2023). 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 – as in the present case – 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.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 20/02/2024, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH / Tandem Diabetes Care Inc and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V (Case number UPC_CFI_454/2023, ORD_9060/2024)
Example of decision on the discretionary powers of the Court to modify, upon a reasoned request of a party, the deadlines set by the statutory rules for performing procedural activities: “9. The provision confers to the Court the discretionary powers to modify, upon a reasoned request of a party, the deadlines set by the statutory rules for performing procedural activities and in exercising these powers the Court has to observe the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity, mentioned in the preamble 2 and 4 of the ‘RoP’ (see UPC CFI 255/2023 CD Paris, order of 10 November 2023, para 11).”
“16. For all these arguments, this judge-rapporteur agrees with the statement that 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).
17. 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.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 12/02/2024, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc./ Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited (Case number: UPC_CFI_425-2023 ORD_7664/2024)
Example of decision on an extension of time limit for filing the statement of defense: “Pursuant to R. 23 RoP, the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is within three months of service of the SoC.
Pursuant to R. 9.3 and R. 334(a) and (b) RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur may, upon reasoned request of a party, extend or shorten any time limit specified in the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), even with retroactive effect. The Judge-Rapporteur notes that the agreement between the parties proposes a reasonable extension of the time limit and that it is appropriate to align the time limit for all 3 defendants.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 09/02/2024, ITCiCo Spain S.L. (Case number UPC_CFI_412/2023 ORD_4804/2024)
Example of decision on a request by a party to extend the time for delivery of the statement of defense: “19. 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.
20. For these purposes, 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.
21. It may be added that the implementation of the 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.”
“28. In any case, submitting the Court a request to extend a time period on the last day of it in a situation in which the reason for that request arose - according to the applicant’s allegation - well before may be appreciate as non-complying with the principle of fairness that must guide the procedural activities of the parties.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Central Division, Order dated 24/01/2024, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH / Amgen, Inc. (Case number UPC_CFI_1/2023, ORD_2233/2024)
Example of decision on the limits of the request to exchange further written pleadings in the written procedure: “In the written procedure the judge-rapporteur may, on a reasoned request by a party, allow the exchange of further written pleadings (Rule 58 in connection with Rule 36 RoP). In addition, under Rule 9.1 RoP, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, therefore also during the written procedure after the exchange of the pleadings in accordance with Rule 43 RoP, order a party to take any step, answer any question or provide any clarification or evidence. As pointed out by the Defendant, pursuant to Rules 103 and 104 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may order the production of further pleadings and evidence in the interim procedure. However, it does not follow from the fact that the judge-rapporteur may do so also in the interim procedure, that the present request (which was made before closure of the written procedure), is as such premature and should for that reason be rejected.
Even though in principle the RoP do not preclude the request made by the Claimants, this does not mean that there is an automatic right to reply to a Rejoinder, as also acknowledged by the Claimants. To the contrary, from the system of exchange of written pleadings in the written procedure against the background of the generally front-loaded character of UPC proceedings (e.g. Preamble RoP 7), it follows that the exchange of the written pleadings is normally limited in accordance with Rule 43 RoP (cf. Rule 58 in connection with Rule 35 RoP). Accordingly, it is to the discretion of the Court to assess whether the present request justifies departing from the general, fixed framework of written submissions which is designed to conduct UPC proceedings in an efficient, proportionate, fair and equitable way (Preamble RoP 2 and 4).”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division -Seat, Order dated 22/01/2024, NJOY Netherlands BV v VMR Products LLC (Case number UPC_CFI_308/2023, ORD_3365/2024)
Example of decision on the competence of the judge-rapporteur regarding the date of service of written pleadings: “7. As the case management is the responsibility of the judge-rapporteur during the written and the interim procedure (see Rule 331 ‘RoP’), the said judge-rapporteur may alter statutory deadlines where he is requested and deems it appropriate.
8. However, nor Rule 9 ‘RoP’, nor, apparently, any other provision contained in the Rules of Procedure, allows the judge-rapporteur to inform a party (even where upon its request) of the exact deadline provided for by statutory rules before it expires. […]
“12. It follows that the interpretation of the provisions concerning the date of service of written pleadings and, consequently, the deadline for lodging the reply to the defence to revocation is the responsibility of the parties and the only duty of the Court is to assess whether that deadline has been met.”

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 20/01/2024, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd./ expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH (ORD_2555/2024)
Example of decision on a request to review the order of the Judge-Rapporteur to allow the extension of an action: “Insofar as R. 9.3 (a) RoP grants the possibility of extending the time limit, this should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases against the background of the strict time limit regime to be found in the Rules of Procedure, which serves to ensure that proceedings are conducted as quickly as possible (see UPC_CFI_475/2023 (LK Düsseldorf), order of 19 January 2024)."

Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 19/01/2024, Dolby International AB, v. HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printi (Case number UPC_CFI_457/2023, ACT_590145/2023)
Example of decision framing the possibility of extending deadlines: “Insofar as R. 9.3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure provides for the possibility of extending time limits, this should only be used sparingly and exclusively in exceptional and justified cases, bearing in mind the strict time limit regime laid down by the Rules of Procedure and designed to ensure that proceedings are conducted as quickly as possible.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 3/01/2024, Philips IP Ventures B.V./ Edrich u.a. (Case number: UPC_CFI_5/2023 App_598021/2023)
Example of decision on an extension of a deadline in exchange for the shortening of another deadline: “The extension of the time limit must be granted because the written reasons for the judgement of the Federal Patent Court of 10 August 2023 were not served until 22 December 2023 and a precise analysis of the reasons for the judgement was made difficult due to the Christmas holidays.
Furthermore, due to the shortening of the nullity duplicate period by one week offered by the plaintiff by one week offered by the plaintiff, there will be no overall delay in the proceedings. The judge-rapporteur has already provisionally agreed with the parties on 14 May 2023 as the main date.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 3/01/2024, Koninklijke Philips N.V./ Edrich u.a. (Case number: UPC_CFI_62/2023 APP_598024/2023)
Example of decision on an extension replication deadline: “The extension of the time limit must be granted because the written reasons for the judgement of the Federal Patent Court of 9 August 2023 were not served until 22 December 2023 and a precise analysis of the reasons for the judgement was made difficult due to the Christmas holidays.
Furthermore, due to the shortening of the nullity duplicate period by one week offered by the plaintiff by one week offered by the plaintiff, there will be no overall delay in the proceedings. The judge-rapporteur has already provisionally agreed with the parties on 14 May 2023 as the main date.”

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 18/12/2023, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.; OROPE Germany GmbH / Panasonic Holdings Corporation (Case number UPC_CoA_472/2023 ORD_595432/2023)
Example of decision on the request for a shortening of a time period (expedition of the appeal) so that the language of the proceedings be changed before the court trial in the Court of First Instance: “The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the Appellant has thus with its request insufficiently taken into account the interests of the Respondent to be given sufficient time to properly prepare its Statement of response, in proportion to the time the Appellant has itself taken to prepare its Statement of grounds of appeal. Allowing the request for expedition of the appeal would be contrary to the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity that the court has to take into account when applying the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal is aware that this means that the Statement of defence will shortly have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings (German) in the proceeding before the Court of First Instance, but is of the opinion that under the circumstances at hand the interests of the Respondent and the principles of due process outweigh the interests of the Appellant.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 18/12/2023, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P v Lama France (Case number UPC_CFI_358/2023 ORD_590941/2023)
Example of decision on the refusal to extend the legal time limit to submit the statement of defense: “The Court points out that the parties before the Unified Patent Court are aware that time limits are strictly limited, and that they must be diligent in their proceedings to ensure that the Court operates in a fair and efficient manner, in accordance with the principles set out in the preamble to the MOP, in articles 2 and 4. Therefore, the defendant cannot legitimately invoke his own negligence in that he only opened the documents in support of the statement of claim on the CMS 4 weeks after the date of communication of the access code, in order to be accepted in his request for an extension of the legal time limit of 3 months to submit his statement of defense.”

Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division, Order dated 28/11/2023, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limitet vs. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE/Tesla Germany GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_54/2023, ORD_589355/2023)
Example of decision concerning deadlines for secrecy requests: “It can be deduced from R. 9.3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure that a simple determination of the expiry of the time limit can also be pronounced by the court upon request. With regard to the right to a fair hearing and the interest of a proper defence against the plaintiff’s response, in the case of applications for the protection of secrets, the time from which the party representatives can fully discuss the opposing party’s pleading with their own party or the group of persons of their own party admitted by the court must be taken into account. As a rule, this is only possible once the confidentiality proceedings have been concluded in accordance with R. 262A RoP.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 29/08/2023,Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Amgen, Inc. (Case number UPC_ CFI_14/2023, ORD_566193/2023)
Example of decision on extensions and reductions of time limits after hearing the opposing party and harmonisation of time limit rules: “The reasons given do not generally justify an extension of the time limit. In particular, harmonisation of the time limit regime as such is not a reason for an extension of the time limit that applies to the litigant who was successfully served at an earlier date. Rather, harmonisation can also be achieved by shortening the time limit that runs for the litigant who was only served at a later date.
The delay in making the annexes available also does not justify an extension of the deadline in the present case. Most of the annexes relate to the contested embodiment or parallel proceedings involving the defendant and are therefore already available to the defendant. With the exception of the classification of features, the remaining annexes relate to the patent in suit. These are publicly available. The feature structure is already reproduced in the statement of claim.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 23/08/2023, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Case number UPC_CFI 15/2023, ORD_562614/2023)
Example of decision on a deadline extension to align deadlines between the two parties: “the alignment of time limits does not in itself constitute grounds for extending the for an intervener who was able to notify successfully at an earlier date. at an earlier date. On the contrary, alignment can be achieved by shortening the time limit for an intervener who was only served at a later date.”

Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division, Order dated 22/08/2023, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Case number UPC_CFI 54/2023, ORD_560542/2023)
Example of decision refusing an extension of the deadline: “To the extent that the defendants refer to the fact that coordination with suppliers based in non-European countries, whose components are at the core of the infringement allegation, is necessary, this circumstance as such does not constitute a convincing reason for an extension of the deadline to be granted as an exception. The deadline for filing a complaint according to R. 23 RoP is designed in such a way that it enables clarification of the facts and internal coordination, even beyond vacation periods, for international patent disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. In the present legal dispute, the deadline for filing a complaint is actually three months and six days for defendant 1) and three months and for defendant 2) even without the requested extension of the deadline due to the calculation of the deadline in accordance with R. 271.6 (b) in conjunction with 271.4 (a) RoP eight days.”

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 17/08/2023, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_562104/2023)
Example of decision on requests introduced on the wrong workflows

Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 16/08/2023, Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Case number UPC_CFI_14/2023, ORD_562104/2023
Example of decision inviting parties to comment applications for extension or shortening of the deadline for opposition and defence