Short Summary
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a further extension of deadlines for the plaintiff's representative to file a reply to the infringement action and a defense to the counterclaim, based on the health-related incapacity of the responsible attorney. The deadlines were extended from December 23, 2024 to December 27, 2024, subject to further substantiation of the health impairments.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) was issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on December 24, 2024, by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, in two consolidated proceedings: UPC_CFI_244/2024 (infringement action) and UPC_CFI_609/2024 (counterclaim/revocation action). 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 patent in dispute is European Patent No. 3 030 471.
The plaintiff's representative had initially requested an extension of the deadlines (originally expiring December 20, 2024) for filing the reply to the infringement action and the defense to the counterclaim, citing the responsible attorney's involvement in numerous urgent deadline-bound matters, a temporary illness-related absence in November 2024, and the need to handle statute-of-limitations-sensitive matters before year-end. The reporting judge had previously extended the deadlines only to December 23, 2024, rejecting the broader extension request.
On December 23, 2024, the plaintiff's representative filed a further request (APP_67908/2024 and APP_67921/2024) for an additional extension until December 27, 2024, citing the attorney's ongoing medical treatment at a clinic in Munich and another clinic, with intermittent symptoms that prevented completion of the pleadings on the same day. The representative noted that the defendant/counterclaimant had refused to consent to the extension without comprehensible grounds, despite being informed of the situation. The representative also argued that the extension would actually benefit the defendant, as the new deadline of December 27, 2024 would give them three additional working days for their own upcoming deadlines (duplic in the infringement proceedings and reply to the counterclaim), compared to the original December 23, 2024 deadline which fell during the Christmas holidays.
The court found that the health impairments of the attorney had been provisionally sufficiently substantiated and granted the extension as requested. However, the court imposed an obligation on the plaintiff's representative to further substantiate the health impairments claimed specifically on the deadline date of December 23, 2024, within 20 days, pursuant to Rules 284 and 291 of the Rules of Procedure. The order also informed the parties of their right to request review by the panel under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure, noting that the order remains effective until such review (Rule 102.2).
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 Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sun Patent TrustvsLYNK & CO International AB and Others
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 618 514 against seven defendants, including LYNK & CO, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities. The Claimant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Panel permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
LiNA Medical AGvsTonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a laparoscopic morcellator, filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Applicant sought measures at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, suspecting that the Defendant's exhibited disposable morcellator was a slavish copy of LiNA's Xcise™ product and infringed the patent. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert, subject to confidentiality measures.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbHvsDanieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd.vsAnker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Meril Italy S.r.l.vsRespondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a European Patent Attorney who is a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether a board chairman can represent a company. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent the legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorized representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
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.