Short Summary
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Detailed Summary
This Order was issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz of the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court on 13 June 2025 in revocation action UPC_CFI_337/2025. The Claimant, TCL Europe SAS (represented by Bird & Bird LLP), filed a revocation action against European Patent No. 3 296 274 owned by the Defendant, Corning Incorporated (represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP), on 22 April 2025.
Two procedural applications were before the Court:
Application 23661/2025: The Claimant sought to admit new pleadings into the revocation proceedings, specifically two additional added matter arguments and a consulting report from the Swedish Patent Office (the 'Swedish Consulting Report') concerning the lack of inventive step attack starting from example 15 of D20. These were also introduced via a counterclaim for revocation filed on 15 May 2025 in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (ACT_66848/2024, UPC_CFI_819/2024). The Claimant justified the late submission by stating that the Swedish Consulting Report was only finalized on 25 April 2025, and the new added matter arguments were developed after the revocation action was lodged. The Defendant objected, arguing the submission was made more than a month after the revocation action was filed without sufficient justification, and that Rule 263 RoP would have been the appropriate route to introduce additions.
Application 25818/2025: The Defendant requested a four-week extension (until 21 July 2025) for filing the Defence to Revocation including an Application to amend the patent. The Defendant cited the additional attacks (if admitted), the need to develop comprehensive and aligned arguments across both revocation and infringement proceedings, the technical and logistical complexity of coordinating testing for accused devices, and the need to align deadlines with the parallel infringement action where the response to the counterclaim was expected by 15 July or later. The Claimant opposed the extension, arguing that harmonizing procedural schedules is not a legitimate objective, that testing related to infringement is irrelevant to revocation proceedings, and that Rule 9.3 RoP only allows extensions in exceptional circumstances, with the Defendant already having at least four to six weeks to address the limited new material.
On 11 June 2025, the Judge-rapporteur discussed the applications with the parties via video conference. During this discussion, the parties reached agreement on a two-week extension for filing the Defence to Revocation and on the admissibility of the new pleadings. The Court accepted this agreement, finding no reason to depart from it on procedural issues of this nature.
The Court therefore: (1) admitted the pleadings submitted with application 23661/2025, including the new added matter arguments and the Swedish Consulting Report; (2) extended the deadline for filing the Defence to Revocation including an Application to amend the patent by two weeks; and (3) rejected any other requests.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in Corning Incorporated vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V.vsRespondent
This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthineers AG
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 352 431 B1 in infringement and revocation proceedings. The Defendants (Siemens entities) applied under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information regarding the design, components, and functioning of the attacked embodiments and certain exhibits. The Claimant (Hologic, Inc.) did not challenge the confidentiality of the information or object to the scope of the order, and the court granted the application.
Hurom Co., Ltd.vsNUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a penalty request in enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a.vsSichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
1 di 4 Milan Local Division UPC CFI n. 770/2024, n. 556/2025 ordinanza depositata il 13.2.2026 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. (‘Pirelli’) CONVENUTO Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd. (‘SYR’) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge-rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDI
CooperSurgical, Inc.vsEuropean Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
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.