Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 MARCH 2025

LD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_483/2024

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

GermanyIntellectual Property

Key takeaways

Amendment of case (Rule 263 RoP)

The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Reasonable Diligence Requirement (Rule 263.2(a) RoP)

The claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in filing the amendment. The claimant became aware of the restoration decision on 7 November 2024 but did not file the application until 17 January 2025.

Impact on Defendants' Conduct (Rule 263.2(b) RoP)

The amendment would not unreasonably hinder the defendants. The subject matter of the proceedings was independent of the countries included in the operative part.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from