Executive Summary
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the scope and admissibility of an application to amend European patent EP 3 594 009 B1. Fujifilm sought to expand the territorial scope of its amendment, arguing consistency with its damages claims. The Court rejected this initial request (R. 263 RoP) because the limitation lacked objective justification required for uniform decision-making under Art. 34 UPCA. However, it subsequently allowed the amended application under R. 30.2 RoP, allowing the patent to be formally amended.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that a territorial limitation on amendments must be based on objective reasons, in line with Art. 34 UPCA and the requirement for uniform decisions. While the initial request to change the scope of amendment (R. 263 RoP) was rejected due to lack of justification and delay, the subsequent application to amend under R. 30.2 RoP was allowed.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Headwater Research LLCvsMotorola Mobility Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, the court addressed a procedural motion concerning deadlines in an infringement action involving patent EP3110072. The defendants requested an extension of the opposition period for certain parties due to logistical and administrative reasons. After considering the arguments, the court granted the request, aligning the opposition deadlines across the involved parties. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines when there is consensus among the litigants.
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request from Disney to extend deadlines for filing its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation in an infringement action. The court granted the extension based on the agreement reached between the parties, acknowledging the complexities arising from parallel litigation and counsel's travel schedules. This case highlights how procedural flexibility is utilized within the UPC framework to ensure fair process while managing complex international disputes.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.PvsLAMA FRANCE
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and nullity action concerning compatible printer cartridges. The court affirmed the scope of direct infringement under Article 25 AJUB, ruling that prior knowledge by the defendant is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement. While the claimant sought broad remedies including injunctions and damages, the final judgment focused on compelling information disclosure to facilitate damage calculation, while rejecting provisional payment requests.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbHvsXSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance rejected Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH's request to amend its infringement action to include the Netherlands. The core issue was not patent validity or infringement itself, but whether the Claimant acted with due diligence after learning that the national part of EP 3 742 231 had been restored in the Netherlands. The Court found that the delay between becoming aware of the restoration and filing the amendment request was unreasonable, setting a clear precedent regarding procedural timeliness in UPC litigation.
Hartmann Packaging A/SvsOmni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
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.