Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning two combined cases (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (Japan) sought extensions of deadlines for filing its reply to the infringement action and its response to the counterclaim for revocation. After the Rapporteur initially extended deadlines to December 23, 2024, the plaintiff's representative filed a further request on December 23, 2024 seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024, citing the responsible attorney's ongoing medical treatment and inability to complete the briefs.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order concerns two combined proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff is Snowpixie Co., Ltd., a Japanese company based in Ibaraki, Japan, represented by Preu Bohlig & Partner. The defendant is Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH, an Austrian company based in Vienna, represented by Rainer Beetz of SONN Patentanwälte. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as representative of the Rapporteur.
The dispute centers on requests for extension of procedural deadlines. The plaintiff's representative initially filed a request on December 19, 2024 seeking extension of the deadlines (for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation) from December 20, 2024 until January 3, 2025. The grounds cited were that the attorney responsible for handling both the reply in the infringement case and the response in the revocation case was involved in numerous time-sensitive urgent matters. Additionally, in November 2024, several proceedings could not be handled due to a temporary illness-related absence of a staff member, and matters at risk of becoming time-barred needed to be completed before the year-end. The requested extension would also cover year-end holidays.
& Analysis: By orders dated December 20, 2024, the Rapporteur extended the deadlines only until December 23, 2024, rejecting the further extension requests (App_67391/2024 and App_67383/2024). On December 23, 2024, at 17:54, the plaintiff's representative filed further requests (APP_67908/2024 and APP_67921/2024) seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024. The representative argued that the responsible attorney could not finalize the briefs that day due to health reasons and needed to seek medical treatment on short notice. The attorney had been under ongoing medical treatment at a clinic in Munich and another facility, with intermittent symptoms making it uncertain when full working capacity would be restored. However, it was anticipated that the attorney would be able to complete both briefs by Friday, December 27, 2024. The representative noted that the opposing counsel had been informed of the situation in detail and that only a short extension of at most two working days was needed, which would not delay the proceedings. Despite these explanations, consent to the extension was refused without comprehensible grounds. The facts were affirmed by the attorney under professional oath. The plaintiff further argued that the extension would actually benefit the defendant/counterclaimant for revocation, as it would provide three additional full working days for upcoming deadlines (new expiration on Thursday, February 27, 2025).
Final Order & Ruling: The provided text is cut off before the full disposition of the order is revealed. The document is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued on December 24, 2024, addressing the plaintiff's request for a short extension of one to two working days to accommodate the medical circumstances of the responsible attorney and enable timely processing of the matters in favor of the plaintiff.
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 Snowpixie Co., Ltd. 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.