Short Summary
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limits available to Netgear for filing a Statement of Defense and any counterclaim for revocation after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Local Division Munich had ordered the second patent's claims to be separated from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew its requests to set aside the separation order and to reject the claim extension, provided Huawei agreed to a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension running from the Court of First Instance's order of January 18, 2024.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Court of Appeal on March 11, 2024, in case UPC_CoA_44/2024 (APL_5395/2024, App_12629/2024), in proceedings conducted in German. The appellants in the original proceedings before the Court of First Instance were Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, and Netgear International Limited (collectively referred to as Netgear), represented by Dr. Stephan Dorn of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The respondent was Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, represented by Dr. Tobias J. Hessel of Clifford Chance. The proceedings concerned two European patents: EP 3611989 and EP 3678321. The underlying case before the Court of First Instance was UPC_CFI_9/2023 before the Local Division Munich.
The contested order (ORD_593106/2024) was issued by the panel of the Local Division Munich on January 23, 2024, following the preliminary proceedings 593105/2023 (Rapporteur) in the main proceedings ACT_459771/2023. By this order, the Local Division Munich directed that the action based on European patent EP 3678321 be separated from the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear filed an appeal against this order and submitted five requests to the Court of Appeal: (1) to set aside the Local Division Munich's orders ORD_597550/2023 and ORD_589178/2023; (2) to reject Huawei's request of November 23, 2023, for permission to extend the claim; (3) to set aside the Local Division Munich's order ORD_593106/2023 separating the subject matter of the claim extension; (4) alternatively, if the Court of Appeal found the claim extension admissible, to order an appropriate time limit for the appellants' defense means that would allow them to assert all available defenses against the extended claim as they would against a new action; and (5) to order acceleration of the appeal proceedings under Rule 225(e) in conjunction with Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure.
& Analysis
The headnote of the order establishes the guiding principle: the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action through an extension of the claim, the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to file a Statement of Defense—and, where applicable, a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed in respect of that patent. The keywords of the order identify the central issue as the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense following an amendment or extension of the claim under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure.
Final Order & Ruling
During the interim hearing, Netgear withdrew requests 1 through 3, as well as the request for suspensive effect filed under App_12629/2024, on the condition that Huawei agreed to an extension of the deadline. Under this conditional withdrawal, a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension would run from the date of the Court of First Instance panel's order of January 18, 2024. The deciding judges were Presiding Judge and Rapporteur Rian Kalden, legally qualified judge Ingeborg Simonsson, and legally qualified judge Patricia Rombach, sitting as the Second Panel.
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 Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited vs Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. 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.