Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to the respondent's appeal response in a patent infringement appeal. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 866 051, where the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) had issued an interim injunction on August 27, 2024 against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10. Scandit sought leave to file a reply to address what it characterized as new arguments raised by Hand Held Products regarding features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 and to introduce additional prior art.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of Appeal in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 866 051. The respondent and appellant is Scandit AG, a company based in Zürich, Switzerland, represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. The applicant and respondent on appeal is Hand Held Products, Inc., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, represented by Bardehle Pagenberg. The presiding judge was Emmanuel Gougé, and the language of proceedings was German.
The underlying proceedings originated before the Court of First Instance, Local Division Munich, which on August 27, 2024 issued an interim injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of patent claims 1 and 10 of the patent in dispute. The Court of First Instance dismissed Hand Held Products' remaining requests for interim measures as well as both parties' requests for cost allocation. Scandit filed an appeal against this order and submitted its appeal brief on September 11, 2024. Hand Held Products filed its response to the appeal on October 2, 2024.
On October 21, 2024, Scandit applied under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a reply to Hand Held Products' appeal response. Scandit argued that the contested decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 of the patent, specifically with reference to 'augmented reality.' Scandit contended that Hand Held Products, in its appeal response, referred for the first time to paragraph [0063] of the patent description, which required detailed analysis by Scandit. Additionally, Scandit argued that the reply was necessary to present further prior art that, due to the short appeal brief deadline in interim injunction proceedings, was unknown to it at the time of filing its appeal brief and therefore could not have been introduced earlier.
Hand Held Products opposed the application and requested its rejection. It argued that, in accordance with the principles of acceleration and procedural efficiency, as well as the front-loaded nature of proceedings, the number of written submissions must remain limited unless the applicant provides compelling reasons under Rule 36 for the admission of further submissions. Hand Held Products contended that the reference to paragraph [0063] merely served to underscore the interpretation made by the Court of First Instance regarding a specific aspect of feature 1.8 of claim 1, and that the issue of augmented reality had already been addressed in Hand Held Products' complaint filed on February 21, 2024.
& Analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the parties' submissions regarding the application under Rule 36. Following a procedural order of October 24, 2024, Hand Held Products submitted its written observations on October 28, 2024. The text of the order is truncated and does not contain the full reasoning or the final ruling on the application.
Final Order & Ruling: The provided text is incomplete and does not include the final disposition of Scandit's application to file a reply under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Scandit AG vs Hand Held Products, Inc. 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.