Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 805 415. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) requested an extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defense from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, citing pending laboratory analyses of foil material relevant to prior art and prior use defenses. The plaintiff (Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.) opposed the extension. The court granted a one-week extension to September 16, 2025, finding the defendants' reasons partially justified but rejecting the longer extension as unnecessary.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 3, 2025, in case UPC_CFI_466/2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415. The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. (Japan), brought an infringement action against the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH (both based in Schwerte, Germany), regarding the offering and distribution of metal plates (metal foils).
The defendants filed a request on August 27, 2025, seeking an extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defense (Klageerwiderung), which was set to expire on September 9, 2025, until October 9, 2025, or alternatively for such period as the court deemed appropriate. The plaintiff opposed the extension in its submission of September 2, 2025, requesting full rejection of the application or, subsidiarily, an extension of only one week until September 16, 2025.
The court applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP, noting that extensions should only be granted sparingly and in justified exceptional cases, while exercising its discretion in light of the principles of the UPCA and the Rules of Procedure, including the preamble's emphasis on efficient and cost-effective proceedings. The court also noted that the principle of fair procedure requires parties to file extension requests as soon as it becomes clear that compliance with the deadline will not be possible.
The court found a one-week extension justified. The defendants had plausibly explained that they commissioned analyses of foil material allegedly available on the market before the priority date, which could be relevant both for an attack on the patent's validity and for asserting a private prior use right. The court accepted the timeline: the defendants contacted the laboratory nanoAnalytics GmbH on June 26, 2025, received a formal offer on July 7, 2025, began initial tests on July 17, 2025, commenced the official measurement series on August 6, 2025, and expected finalization of the report in the first week of September. The court found that within the extended deadline, the defendants would have the nanoAnalytics report and slightly more than a week to evaluate the results and incorporate them into their submissions.
However, the court rejected any further extension. Regarding the second laboratory (Montanuniversität Leoben), the court found that the defendants had not explained the relationship between the two laboratories' analyses or why both reports were strictly necessary. The Montanuniversität Leoben had indicated that analyses would not be completed before September 12, 2025, meaning results would be available within the extended deadline. The court also noted that the defendants should have inquired with the laboratory about earlier, preliminary results and pushed for acceleration.
The court further rejected the defendants' argument regarding the time needed by the plaintiff's own laboratory for pre-filing analysis, holding that pre-litigation analysis falls outside the procedural deadline framework and the plaintiff was not required to expedite it, also for reasons of equality of arms.
The court ordered that the deadline for filing the statement of defense—and thus also the deadline for filing a counterclaim for revocation—be extended for both defendants until September 16, 2025, and rejected the remainder of the defendants' request.
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 Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. vs Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content. No facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the available text.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.vsAmgen, Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, owned by Amgen, relating to monoclonal antibodies binding to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Munich Section) revoked the patent entirely for lack of inventive step under Article 138(1)(a) EPC in conjunction with Article 56 EPC, finding that neither the main request nor any auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen were valid. Amgen was ordered to bear Regeneron's legal costs in the amount of 1.375 million euro.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing OyvsMicrosoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
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.