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
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.