Short Summary
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., requested an extension of the deadline for filing its reply brief by one week until 19 May 2025, due to delayed access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence and the late service of the Counterclaim for Revocation. The court granted the extension, finding it justified under the circumstances, and noted that the Defendants did not oppose the request.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by Judge-Rapporteur Böttcher of the Mannheim Local Division on 8 May 2025 in the patent infringement action ACT_62013/2024 (UPC_CFI_716/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant is Polidoro S.p.a., represented by Tilmann Müller-Stoy, and the Defendants are Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA, both represented by Marc van Wijngaarden.
The proceedings involved a Statement of Defence (SoD) and a Counterclaim for Revocation (CCR) that were lodged in separate briefs. The SoD, which did not include the pleadings of the CCR, was served on the Claimant on 10 March 2025 with access to a redacted version only. The redaction concerned information regarding the estimated damages of the Defendants in case of an injunction. After a final order pursuant to R. 262A RoP was issued, the Claimant itself was given access to the unredacted version on 19 March 2025. The CCR, using a separate brief, was served on the Claimant on 18 March 2025.
The Claimant requested that the deadline for filing its reply brief be extended by one week, until 19 May 2025. The court found that the request related to the uniform time period for filing the Reply to the SoD, the Defence to the CCR, and an Application to amend the patent. Even if the time periods were not regarded as uniform, the scope of the request unambiguously followed from the Claimant's reasoning.
The court held that, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the extension of the time period was justified. The new time period of 19 May 2025 was set to apply to both the Reply to the SoD and the Defence to the CCR. Since an Application to amend the patent pursuant to R. 30 RoP is linked to the Defence to the CCR, the new time period also applied to any potential Application to amend the patent. The Defendants did not oppose the extension.
According to the case-law of the Local Division Mannheim, since access to the unredacted version of the SoD was delayed, the Claimant had to be granted an extension so that the two-month time period for the reply would be available starting from the date when access to the unredacted version was given to at least one natural person of the Claimant. Although the restricted access concerned one point of at least minor importance for the CCR proceedings, an extension for the Defence to the CCR was also justified, as the Claimant still needed the opportunity to reconcile its arguments regarding infringement and the defence to the CCR. Additionally, since the CCR was served on the Claimant on 18 March 2025, the extension avoided an overly shortened time period for the Claimant to react to the CCR. The court also noted there was no indication that the Claimant's request was unduly delaying the proceedings. The court left open the question of which starting point for the time period would be relevant if the service dates of the SoD and CCR differed considerably.
The final order extended the time period for the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence, the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and an Application to amend the patent until 19 May 2025.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Polidoro S.p.a. vs Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entitiesvsSTADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd.vsINSULET Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order concerns EOFLOW's application for reimbursement of costs incurred in defending against INSULET's request for a provisional injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327, which the Court had rejected on 22 November 2024. Since the PI proceedings were followed by separate revocation and infringement proceedings on the merits, the Court held that cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the merits proceedings as a whole, rather than parceled out by stage. EOFLOW's application for costs was therefore dismissed without examination of the substance.
Docket NavigatorvsSumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)vsShenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a confidentiality order issued by The Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings involving three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology in the context of a FRAND licence dispute. After the parties reached a settlement providing for termination of the appeal proceedings by withdrawal of the underlying CFI proceedings, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.vsexpert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.