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
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Bodycap, Université de RennesvsEPO
1 UPC_CFI_628/2025 ORDONNANCE du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet Division Centrale (section de Milan) concernant une Action contre une décision de l’OEB (règle 97 RdP) rendue le 6 août 2025 DEMANDEURS 1) Bodycap 6, rue du docteur Laënnec 14200 -
AGFA NVvsGucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Insulet CorporationvsEOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division – Court of First Instance - UPC_CFI_1167/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rules 354.3, 262. 2 and 262A RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 December 2025 Applicant INSULET Co 100 Nagog Park - MA 01720 - Acton – US Massachuset
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o.vsZhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A., Patent Attorney Dr. Antonio Lasca, of Pirelli Tyre s.p.a.vsSICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought an infringement action against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled 'motorcycles tyre,' which covers a tyre with both high on-road and off-road performance. SYR counterclaimed for revocation of the patent for insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step. The Court found that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of EP'207, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, publication orders, and penalty payments against SYR.
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.