Short Summary
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Detailed Summary
This Order was issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz of the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court on 13 June 2025 in revocation action UPC_CFI_337/2025. The Claimant, TCL Europe SAS (represented by Bird & Bird LLP), filed a revocation action against European Patent No. 3 296 274 owned by the Defendant, Corning Incorporated (represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP), on 22 April 2025.
Two procedural applications were before the Court:
Application 23661/2025: The Claimant sought to admit new pleadings into the revocation proceedings, specifically two additional added matter arguments and a consulting report from the Swedish Patent Office (the 'Swedish Consulting Report') concerning the lack of inventive step attack starting from example 15 of D20. These were also introduced via a counterclaim for revocation filed on 15 May 2025 in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (ACT_66848/2024, UPC_CFI_819/2024). The Claimant justified the late submission by stating that the Swedish Consulting Report was only finalized on 25 April 2025, and the new added matter arguments were developed after the revocation action was lodged. The Defendant objected, arguing the submission was made more than a month after the revocation action was filed without sufficient justification, and that Rule 263 RoP would have been the appropriate route to introduce additions.
Application 25818/2025: The Defendant requested a four-week extension (until 21 July 2025) for filing the Defence to Revocation including an Application to amend the patent. The Defendant cited the additional attacks (if admitted), the need to develop comprehensive and aligned arguments across both revocation and infringement proceedings, the technical and logistical complexity of coordinating testing for accused devices, and the need to align deadlines with the parallel infringement action where the response to the counterclaim was expected by 15 July or later. The Claimant opposed the extension, arguing that harmonizing procedural schedules is not a legitimate objective, that testing related to infringement is irrelevant to revocation proceedings, and that Rule 9.3 RoP only allows extensions in exceptional circumstances, with the Defendant already having at least four to six weeks to address the limited new material.
On 11 June 2025, the Judge-rapporteur discussed the applications with the parties via video conference. During this discussion, the parties reached agreement on a two-week extension for filing the Defence to Revocation and on the admissibility of the new pleadings. The Court accepted this agreement, finding no reason to depart from it on procedural issues of this nature.
The Court therefore: (1) admitted the pleadings submitted with application 23661/2025, including the new added matter arguments and the Swedish Consulting Report; (2) extended the deadline for filing the Defence to Revocation including an Application to amend the patent by two weeks; and (3) rejected any other requests.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section. Understanding the court's reasoning in TCL Europe SAS vs Corning Incorporated is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Network System Technologies LLCvsTexas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in Munich regarding EP 1 552 399 B1, against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP, challenging the court's jurisdiction, the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.vsAcademy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Milan seat) of the Unified Patent Court against the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) seeking invalidation of European Patent No. 3 854 403, which covers the use of Remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step and sufficient disclosure, while the defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed all amendment requests, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs set by agreement at €800,000, with the value of the case fixed at €20 million.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.vsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) & Others
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. The Defendants requested alignment of deadlines for filing their Preliminary Objection, Statements of Defence, and Counterclaim for Revocation, citing that only three of the four Defendants had been effectively served. The Court granted the request, finding the alignment reasonable and conducive to procedural efficiency.
GC Aesthetics GroupvsEstablishment Labs S.A. (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
This is a Procedural Order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The GC Aesthetics group of companies (Defendants in the infringement action) filed an application under R. 190 RoP seeking production of evidence from LABS related to the Motiva SilkSurface breast implants. The Court issued a conditional order granting certain evidence production requests while dismissing others, based on cumulative conditions including reasonable available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and OthersvsOna Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
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.