Short Summary
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order was issued on 14 October 2025 by Judge Dr Thom acting as judge-rapporteur at the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024 concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, filed an unsolicited 57-page submission on 1 September 2025, which the court divided into two parts: (1) translations of the main requests and clarifications that injunctive relief was also sought for direct infringement under auxiliary requests related to the amended form of the patent, and (2) new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement and auxiliary requests relating to the amended form of the patent concerning indirect infringement.
Regarding the first part, the court found it admissible. Although the Claimant could have been more careful in translating its main requests and formulating corresponding auxiliary requests in its Reply, the interpretation of previous statements suggested these requests were already sought. The court noted this clarification would have been addressed at the latest during the oral hearing, and since this part did not alter the proceedings in content, the Defendants were not required to file a response.
Regarding the second part concerning indirect infringement, the court took a different view. It rejected the Claimant's argument that the new requests merely provided alternative legal characterization of the same underlying acts, holding that indirect patent infringement is a distinct type of infringement with different requirements under Art. 26 UPCA compared to direct infringement. The court noted that even if such requests did not constitute an amendment to the case, new arguments would be necessary to substantiate Art. 26 UPCA requirements. Critically, the Claimant filed outside any case management regime without first submitting a R. 36-request explaining why it was unable to file its brief earlier within the Reply time period, as required by the court's prior order in UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025 (TRUMPF v. IPG Laser). The court further noted that the Defendants had already pointed out in their Statement of Defence that the allegation of direct infringement of mobile phones was inconclusive for the alleged realization of feature group 9.12 (controller) regarding accessory devices not accused by the Claimant.
The final order: (1) the auxiliary requests for indirect infringement (B.) and the auxiliary requests relating to the amended form of the patent (C.) concerning indirect infringement were declared not admissible and not taken into account; (2) the Defendants' auxiliary request under R. 36 RoP was dismissed; (3) no interim conference would be held, with reference to the Panel's order of 13 October 2025 regarding the scope of the dispute; and (4) the written procedure was closed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ona Patents SL vs Google Ireland Limited o. a. 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.