Short Summary
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal in proceedings involving Lionra Technologies Ltd. as the appellant (and plaintiff in the main proceedings before the court of first instance) and Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc. as respondents (and defendants in the main proceedings). The patent at issue is European Patent EP 2 201 740. The proceedings are conducted in German. The presiding judge is Peter Blok, acting as Rapporteur and legally qualified judge.
On February 19, 2025, the Local Division Hamburg issued its contested decision, dismissing Lionra's infringement claim against Cisco as well as Cisco's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. Lionra subsequently filed an appeal against this decision. On June 19, 2025, Lionra submitted its statement of grounds of appeal along with applications under Rule 262A and Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. On July 17, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled on Lionra's applications and granted Cisco access to the unredacted version of the appeal brief. Until that point, Cisco had only had access to a version of the appeal brief in which information classified by Lionra as confidential had been redacted.
Cisco requested that the deadline for filing its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal be extended until October 17, 2025. Lionra, in turn, requested that any extension granted to Cisco should not exceed one week, or alternatively ten calendar days.
& Analysis
The Court found it undisputed that Cisco was entitled to an extension of the deadline for filing its response to the appeal and cross-appeal, because Cisco did not have access to the unredacted version of the appeal brief at the time it was filed. However, the Court determined that the one-month extension requested by Cisco was unreasonably long, because the confidential information to which Cisco had only recently gained access constituted a relatively small portion of the appeal brief and related to the source code of Cisco software, which was already known to Cisco itself. Conversely, the Court found that the one-week or ten-calendar-day extension requested by Lionra was unreasonably short, because the confidential information concerned a new expert statement regarding the alleged infringement. Balancing these considerations, the Court concluded that a two-week extension was appropriate.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court ordered that the deadline for filing the response to the appeal and the cross-appeal be extended until October 3, 2025. All other requests by the parties were dismissed. The order was issued on August 12, 2025, and signed by Judge Peter Blok.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.