Short Summary
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division on 27 June 2025 in case UPC_CFI_344/2025, concerning European patent EP 2 831 787. The Claimant, Irdeto B.V., brought a patent infringement action against four Defendants: (1) SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (domiciled in China), (2) DJI Europe B.V. (Netherlands), (3) DJI GmbH (Germany), and (4) Solectric GmbH (Germany). Defendants 1 to 3 belong to the same group of companies, while Defendant 4 allegedly runs a DJI web store.
The statement of claim was served on Defendant 2 on 14 March 2025 and on Defendants 3 and 4 on 29 April 2025. Service on Defendant 1 in China was still pending. Defendants 2 to 4, all represented by the same counsel (Tobias J. Hessel), requested an extension and harmonization of the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence, seeking a uniform deadline of 15 September 2025 pursuant to Rule 23 and Rule 9(a) of the Rules of Procedure. They argued that more time was needed due to the technical complexity of the proceedings and the need to examine the attacked embodiments and assess the claimant's test results. The Claimant objected to the request.
The parties had considered an agreement whereby the representative of Defendants 2 to 4 would accept service on behalf of Defendant 1 in exchange for a uniform extended deadline, but they could not agree on the length of the extension (15 September 2025 versus 1 September 2025).
The Court found the basis for its order in Rule 9.3(a) RoP. It held that a partial extension was justified for two reasons. First, harmonization of the time periods was justified to establish a uniform time period regime, given that Defendants 2 to 4 are uniformly represented and Defendants 2 and 3 belong to the same group of companies. Without harmonization, different time periods would apply throughout the written procedure, complicating case management. Since the procedural relationship with the latest time period sets the pace, overall proceedings would not be delayed. The Court noted that the Claimant's announcement to submit its next written statement simultaneously with Defendants' Statements of Defence was not binding and did not guarantee harmonization.
Second, the Court found that a further extension beyond 14 August 2025 was not justified. Defendants 2 to 4 had only vaguely claimed that technical complexity required more time, without presenting concrete facts demonstrating why the time needed was longer than average. The Court also noted that the extended time period would automatically apply to any counterclaim for revocation.
The final order extended the time periods for the Statements of Defence of Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025, and dismissed the request in all other respects.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Irdeto B.V. vs SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Unparseable CasevsEx Parte
The provided judgment text appears to be corrupted or encoded binary data and does not contain readable case information. No case title, parties, facts, or legal reasoning can be extracted from the input.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsInsulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a revocation action filed by EOFLOW against Insulet's European patent EP4201327 (relating to a fluid delivery device for insulin pumps), along with Insulet's counterclaim for infringement against EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump. The court addressed issues including the requirements for issuing a decision by default, the interpretation of patent claim language, and the application of cost caps under Article 1(3) of the Administrative Committee's decision. The court ultimately found infringement of claim 1 of EP4201327, issued injunctive relief, ordered information provision, product recall, and damages, with EOFLOW bearing the costs.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard CollegevsVizgen, Inc.
10x Genomics and Harvard College (collectively '10x') appealed three orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 4108782. Before a decision on the appeals, 10x requested withdrawal of all three appeals, and Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and noted that no cost decision was needed since both parties waived cost claims.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co.vsHäfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant seeks full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty/inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter, while the Defendant seeks dismissal and alternatively proposes 40 auxiliary requests (in two alternative forms, totaling 80) to maintain the patent in amended form. In this Case Management Order, the Judge-rapporteur found the number of auxiliary requests unreasonable and directed the Defendant to limit and/or re-order them, while also addressing case valuation, costs, and offering to facilitate a settlement discussion.
Total Semiconductor, LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant requested permission to file a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP in response to the Defendants' rejoinder, particularly regarding new arguments on Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0. The court partially postponed the final decision on admission of further written submissions until the oral hearing, granting the Claimant two weeks to submit a response strictly limited to AVS Class 0, with Defendants given two weeks to reply, while dismissing the request in all other respects.
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.