UPC Procedure: Concise Further Written Submissions Allowed After Rejoinder

In a Procedural Order dated 24 January 2024, the Munich Central Division Court of First Instance set out an interesting decision concerning the admissibility of written submissions in response to a Rejoinder. The order was issued in case UPC_CFI_1/2023 between claimants Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A, and defendant Amgen, Inc.

The claimants alleged that a Rejoinder filed by the defendant had introduced new points into the proceedings, of which some were alleged to be inaccurate. The claimants requested that the Court exercise its powers to allow a concise response and accompanying expert declarations into the proceedings. The defendant argued that the claimants should have waited for the interim conference to request permission to file further expert declarations, and that if the application were to be allowed the written evidence would "further spiral out of control".

While the Court emphasized that there is no automatic right to reply to a Rejoinder, they did establish that under specific circumstances it may be appropriate to allow further written submissions. In view of the undisputed addition of new points to the proceedings, and alleged inaccuracies introduced in the Rejoinder, alongside the claimant's efforts to concisely address these points, the Judge-rapporteur deemed it appropriate in this case to allow the reply into proceedings. The Judge-rapporteur believed the reply to be a bona fide attempt to respond to the new points, seemingly in part because of the conciseness of the reply and accompanying declarations. It is promising to see the Court is willing to engage with proceedings and take an active role in case management.

To subscribe to regular updates please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.