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
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.