Short Summary
This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 251 983. The defendant had previously confirmed 8 December 2026 as its preferred hearing date, and the Court had already rejected a first postponement application. The Court addressed procedural expectations regarding timely responses to scheduling proposals and the standard for granting postponements once a date has been agreed.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by Panel 1b of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 251 983. The claimant is Laitram L.L.C., a company based in Harahan, Louisiana, United States, represented by Böhmert & Böhmert. The defendant is ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems, based in Hjørring, Denmark, represented by SKW Schwarz with support from Molina Ho. The language of proceedings is German. Two related case numbers are referenced: UPC_CFI_642/2025 (the main action) and UPC_CFI_472/2026 (a Counterclaim for revocation).
The dispute concerns scheduling of the oral hearing. On 13 February 2026, the Court invited the parties to comment on three proposed dates and suggested bilateral coordination. The claimant responded within the deadline, while the defendant did not. By order of 20 February 2026, the Court scheduled an in-person oral hearing for 8 December 2026. The defendant subsequently confirmed, in a written pleading received on 23 February 2026, that 8 December 2026 was its preferred date. On 25 February 2026, the Court issued a decision pursuant to Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, also ordering that the Counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_472/2026) be decided on the same date. On 3 March 2026, the defendant filed its first application to postpone, citing the unavailability of its managing director on 8 December 2026, and stating that its patent attorneys would also be unavailable on 10 December 2026 and 22 December 2026 (the other originally proposed dates). The claimant opposed this on 4 March 2026. By order of 6 March 2026, the Munich Local Division rejected the first postponement application, finding that the defendant's submission regarding its managing director's unavailability did not substantively justify a postponement, as no explanation or substantiation was provided. Following the scheduling of an interim conference, the defendant filed a second application to postpone on 17 March 2026, which is the subject of the present order.
& Analysis: The Court articulated general principles governing scheduling and postponement requests. First, when the Court invites parties to comment on proposed dates for an interim conference or oral hearing, UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly and no later than the expiration of the deadline set. Second, once a date has been set, subsequent requests for postponement will be rejected unless substantial grounds, evident to the Court, make it unreasonable for a party to attend. The compelling reasons for postponement must be set out in the application so they may be considered in the Court's discretionary decision. Third, this standard applies even if the late request refers to one of the other dates originally proposed by the Court; once a date has been agreed upon with the parties, potential alternative dates are generally no longer reserved for that specific proceeding.
Final Order & Ruling: The order was issued on 2 April 2026 by the fully constituted panel of judges addressing the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date. The text of the order is truncated in the available record, but the headnotes establish the Court's framework for evaluating postponement requests, emphasizing that parties must respond to scheduling proposals in a timely manner and that postponements after a date has been agreed require substantiated, compelling reasons evident to the Court.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Unified Patent Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Laitram L.L.C. vs ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak GmbHvsRespondent
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, GermvsPatentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
This order addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application following an appeal in a patent infringement and revocation case concerning EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal dismissed Rematec's application to refer its cost decision request to the Court of First Instance, holding that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction over cost decisions, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule.
MediaTek Germany GmbHvsRespondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP, arguing that as a Chinese-domiciled entity, enforcement of a cost order in China would be uncertain. Huawei countered by providing a legally binding assurance that any cost decision could be served on its German subsidiary, Huawei Technologies Deutschland GmbH.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al.
This procedural order of the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The order primarily addresses GSK's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claim in infringement action UPC_CFI_619/2025 to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products'. Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
Orange SAvsHMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
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.