Short Summary
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on a cost determination request concerning appeal costs. The respondents (Hanshow entities) had filed their cost determination request on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the appeal was rejected on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court held that the retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP was inadmissible, as Rule 320 RoP on restitutio in integrum operates as lex specialis and displaces the general extension rule in this context.
Detailed Summary
SES-imagotag SA (France) was the applicant in the original proceedings, having sought interim measures. The respondents were Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd (China) and three related Hanshow entities in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The applicant had sought interim measures, which were rejected at first instance. The appeal against this rejection was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on May 13, 2024.
On June 18, 2024—more than one month after the appeal decision—the Hanshow respondents filed a cost determination request regarding the costs of the appeal proceedings (APL_8/2024, UPC_CoA_1/2024) with the Court of Appeal, seeking EUR 131,874.80. The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the reporting judge of the Court of First Instance on July 29, 2024, instructing that June 18, 2024 be treated as the filing date at first instance. The respondents then sought a retroactive three-working-day extension of the expired June 13, 2024 deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, and the determination of appeal costs. SES-imagotag argued that the respondents had missed the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP and that the retroactive extension request was inadmissible and unfounded.
& Analysis:
The Local Chamber Munich held that the retroactive extension request was inadmissible and that the cost determination request had to be rejected due to the missed deadline. The court found that the respondents had missed the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP for requesting cost determination and had failed to file the required restitutio in integrum (restoration of rights) application under Rule 320 RoP with the competent court. The court reasoned that Rule 320 RoP operates as lex specialis and displaces the general Rule 9.3(a) RoP on deadline extensions in cases where a party has missed a deadline and, as a direct consequence, loses a right (here, the right to cost reimbursement). The court noted that under Rule 151 RoP, if the deadline is missed, the entitled party loses the right to cost reimbursement. The court left open the general question of whether Rule 9.3(a) RoP permits a party to file an extension request only after a deadline has expired, but held that such retroactive extension is not available for the missed cost determination deadline under Rule 151 RoP.
Final Order & Ruling:
The Local Chamber Munich rejected the request for retroactive deadline extension as inadmissible and rejected the request for determination of the appeal costs due to the missed deadline.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.vsRespondent
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbHvsRespondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
Grundfos Holding A/SvsHefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.
GISELA MAYER GmbHvsRespondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/02/2025 Concernant une demande en garantie des frais (Règle 158 Rdp) REQUÉRANT - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 - Memmingen
Bhagat Textile EngineersvsOerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
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.