Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
97 cases · page 4 of 4
Showing 91–96BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In this interim conference regarding the revocation action against EP 3 414 708, the UPC Central Division addressed several critical procedural issues. The court strictly enforced the principle against late-filed attacks, excluding novelty arguments that were not part of the initial statement for revocation. However, it allowed sufficiency challenges targeting the amended patent to proceed. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to maintaining a structured and front-loaded litigation process.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request by an individual seeking public access to various documents related to a patent revocation action. The judge-rapporteur rejected the application, clarifying the scope of document disclosure under the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'written pleadings and evidence' must be lodged by parties to qualify for Rule 262(1)(b) access, excluding internal Registry communications or court orders.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC Central Division order addressed a procedural dispute during a revocation action concerning EP 3646 825. The core issue was the defendant's attempt to amend its case and patent application late in the proceedings, seeking leave from the court. The panel ultimately sided with the claimant, rejecting the defendant’s request for amendment leave. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency while applying principles of fairness when managing complex amendments.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Meril Italy srl to extend the written phase of a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant sought permission for further pleadings due to new arguments raised by the defendant in its rejoinder. However, the Court ruled that the existing rules governing the written procedure were sufficient and that the request lacked justification under principles of proportionality. This decision reinforces the strict adherence to procedural timelines within UPC revocation actions.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Tandem Diabetes Care to extend its deadline for filing a defense in an action for declaration of non-infringement against Roche. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is required under UPC rules, extensions must be based on objective difficulties preventing timely submission, not merely on strategic concerns related to preliminary objections or parallel proceedings. This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural deadlines unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH to extend its deadline for filing a defense in a revocation action against Tandem Diabetes Care. Roche argued that the pending preliminary objection made timely submissions potentially useless and costly. The Court ultimately denied the extension, emphasizing that while flexibility is allowed under Rule 9 RoP, extensions must be justified by an objective difficulty in preparing a proper defense, not merely by procedural uncertainty.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
In a procedural matter concerning a revocation action, the UPC Central Division denied an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking an extension of time to file its statement of defence against Bayerische Motoren Werke AG. The court strictly applied the principles governing discretionary extensions, requiring objective impossibility rather than subjective difficulties like illness or technical access issues. This decision reinforces the strict nature of procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.