Short Summary
This order concerns procedural deadlines for filing Statements of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant, NEC Corporation, sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6) to May 23, 2024, arguing they belonged to the same group as Defendant 1) and shared a coordinated defense. The Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024, citing the Claimant's failure to upload the correct HEVC standard annexes with the Statement of Claim. The Court extended the deadline for Defendants 1), 3), 4), and 6) to July 8, 2024, rejecting the Claimant's requests.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Munich in case UPC_CFI_498/2023. The Claimant is NEC Corporation, and the Defendants include TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Defendant 1), TCT Mobile Germany GmbH (Defendant 3), TCT Mobile Europe SAS (Defendant 4), and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o. (Defendant 6). The Statement of Claim was served on Defendant 1) on February 23, 2024, and on Defendants 3), 4), and 6) on March 23, 2024. Service on the remaining Defendants was pending at the time of the order.
The Claimant requested that the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6) to file their Statement of Defense be shortened to May 23, 2024. The Claimant argued that these Defendants were all represented by the same representative as Defendant 1), who had been aware of the Statement of Claim since February 23, 2024, and had been able to prepare and coordinate the defense. The Claimant further noted that all Defendants belonged to the same group of companies, their infringing acts related to the same products, and they coordinated their defense strategy.
The Defendants (1), 3), 4), and 6) requested that the filing deadline for all of them be set to July 8, 2024. They raised two principal objections. First, they argued that the Claimant's request to shorten the deadline was improperly filed because it was submitted by Mrs. Ronja Schregle, who was not appointed as the Claimant's representative in the CMS. They further contended that treating defendants served on different dates with identical deadlines would constitute discrimination and a violation of the right to be heard. Second, the Defendants complained that the Claimant had submitted the AVC standard with its Statement of Claim rather than the 2014 version of the HEVC standard referenced therein. The correct standard (Exhibit BP 6_corrected) was only submitted on May 15, 2024.
& Analysis
The Claimant opposed the Defendants' request for extension, arguing that all references to the standard in the Statement of Claim correctly addressed the relevant sections in the corrected exhibit, and that the fact that the ITU-T H.265 (10/2014) standard had been superseded by a September 2023 version was irrelevant. The Claimant also noted that the Defendants had been provided with the relevant HEVC standard version 10/2014 in several other HEVC infringement cases.
The Court relied on the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_320/2023 (APL_572929/2023), which established that a reasoned request by a defendant for an extension of the deadline for filing the Statement of Defense is sufficient where a claimant failed to upload Annexes simultaneously with the Statement of Claim in the CMS, thereby not complying with Rule 13.2, and as a result those Annexes were unavailable when the defendant's representative accessed the CMS. The Court held that this case law applied equally where wrong Annexes were provided with the Statement of Claim.
Final Order & Ruling
The Court ordered that the deadline for Defendants 1), 3), 4), and 6) to file a Statement of Defense be extended to July 8, 2024. The Claimant's requests were rejected. The order was signed by Presiding Judge and Judge-rapporteur Dr. Zigann on May 27, 2024.
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 NEC Corporation vs Respondent 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.