Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants sought an extension from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, while the plaintiff opposed the request and proposed at most a one-week extension. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf applied Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, noting that extensions should be granted only in justified exceptional cases and that parties must file extension requests as soon as it becomes clear they cannot meet the deadline.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., a Japanese company headquartered in Tokyo, filed an infringement action against the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, both based in Schwerte, Germany. The action concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 805 415 through the offering and distribution of metal plates (metal foils). The case was registered as UPC_CFI_466/2025 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, with German as the procedural language. The order was issued by Judge Dr. Schumacher sitting as the rapporteur.
On August 27, 2025, the defendants filed a request to extend the deadline for submitting their statement of defense, which was set to expire on September 9, 2025. They sought an extension until October 9, 2025, or alternatively for any period the court deemed appropriate. The plaintiff responded on September 2, 2025, opposing the extension request in its entirety and, in the alternative, requesting only a one-week extension until September 16, 2025. The central procedural question before the court was therefore the appropriate exercise of discretion under Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure regarding time limit extensions.
& Analysis
The court grounded its analysis in Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, which empowers the court to extend time limits. The court emphasized that this power should be exercised cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases, citing prior decisions including UPC_CFI_363/2023 (Seoul Viosys v. expert e-Commerce) and UPC_CFI_412/2023 (ITCiCo v. BMW). The court noted that the determination of the appropriate extension period lies within its discretion, referencing UPC_CoA_543/2024 (Xiaomi v. Panasonic). In exercising this discretion, the court must consider the principles established in the UPCA and the Rules of Procedure, including the Preamble, which directs the court to conduct proceedings as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible while applying the Rules flexibly and in a balanced manner, as affirmed in UPC_CoA_170/2025 (ILME v. Phoenix Contact). The court further held that the principle of fair trial requires a party to file an extension request as soon as it becomes clear that compliance with the deadline will not be possible.
Final Order & Ruling
Based on the reasoning set out above, the court addressed the competing positions of the parties regarding the appropriate length of the extension. The text of the order is partially truncated at the end, but the visible portion indicates that the court concluded a one-week extension was appropriate, aligning with the plaintiff's alternative request rather than the defendants' requested one-month extension.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, Zapp AG vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.vsTIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., holder of European Patent EP 2519412 relating to a tire for motor vehicles and a pair of tires for motor vehicles, filed an application for provisional and precautionary measures against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (China) and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (Germany) ahead of the EICMA international motorcycle exhibition (November 5-10, 2024), alleging that the defendants would exhibit infringing products. The Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction but invited Pirelli to limit its request to seizure, delivery of infringing goods, and procedural costs. Pirelli accordingly narrowed its application, and the Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter under Rule 212(2) given the extreme urgency.
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – IsraelvsSHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
Cardo Systems Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, sought a decision by default against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited for infringement of its patent through the sale of Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. The defendants failed to enter an appearance or file any defence despite valid service, and the three-month period under Rule 23 RoP had expired. The Court granted the default judgment, finding that the defendants' deliberate copying of the patent and continued infringement demonstrated awareness, warranting damages under Article 68(1) UPCA.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al.
This procedural order of the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The order primarily addresses GSK's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claim in infringement action UPC_CFI_619/2025 to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products'. Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
Bostik, Inc., 53226, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USvs1-Henkel France, 4-Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
Bostik, Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging, sued multiple Henkel entities for allegedly infringing the patent through their Loctite® Liofol products in several European territories. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division declared the patent invalid in its entirety, finding that claim 1 as granted extended beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter) because it encompassed embodiments with adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm not supported by the original filing. Consequently, Bostik's infringement action was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc.vsASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw all proceedings before the closure of the written procedure and did not request a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawals and ordered 50% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant, Defendant 2), and Defendant 1) in accordance with the applicable Rules of Procedure.
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.