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
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.