Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 APRIL 2024

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

CD Munich, 31 January 2024, Order 103 RoP / 105.5 RoP, UPC_CFI_252/2024

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 court does not see a legal basis for pre-emptively and categorially ruling out the submission of any further auxiliary requests.

GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Philipp Bovenkamp
Philipp Bovenkamp
Author LinkedIn connections

1. Key takeaways

Admissibility of auxiliary requests

Claimant requested to limit the submission of auxiliary requests for the further course of proceedings.

The court does not see a legal basis for pre-emptively and categorially ruling out the submission of any further auxiliary requests. Nor does the Court see any legal basis to order the Defendant to make the auxiliary requests (more) convergent.

An announcement reserving the right to amend, e.g. combine, these auxiliary requests, as required, and/or to change the order of the auxiliary requests in the further course of the proceedings is not considered as an auxiliary request on file because it lacks a concrete proposal.

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.

Register for freeORLog in

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.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Court In The Act: Germany's New Commercial Courts Challenge Arbitration's Dominance

Germany has enacted reforms establishing specialised international commercial court chambers that allow English-language proceedings and streamlined appeals directly to the Federal Court of Justice. This development positions German state courts as a competitive alternative to arbitration for cross-border commercial disputes, prompting parties to reassess their dispute resolution strategies in contracts with a German nexus.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

LD Munich, August 17, 2026, Decision On Conditional Counterclaims For Revocation And Cost Allocation, UPC_CFI_492/2025, UPC_CFI_1309/2025

A Munich Local Division ruling addresses whether a counterclaim for patent revocation that transitions from unconditional to conditional status—dependent on a finding of infringement—remains subject to unconditional limitation requirements under Rule 263.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The case involves Papst Licensing's infringement action against Roborock entities concerning EP 3 030 943, with implications for procedural strategy in UPC patent disputes.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, July 6, 2026, Decision Regarding Application To Withdraw (R. 265 RoP) And Reimbursement Of Court Fees (R. 370.9 RoP), UPC-CoA-29/2026, UPC-CoA-30/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses applications to withdraw in appeal proceedings involving Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA, and Polidoro S.p.a. concerning European Patent EP 2 037 175. The proceedings examine procedural rules governing withdrawal applications under the Rules of Procedure, specifically Rules 265.1, 265.2(c), and 370.9(b).
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Court Of Appeal, 17 August 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_69/2026, UPC_CoA_71/2026, UPC_CoA_72/2026

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling on evidence production requests in appeal proceedings involving Network System Technologies LLC and Qualcomm entities. This case addresses procedural matters under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure concerning three European patents related to telecommunications technology.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

LD Helsinki, April 29, 2026, Decision On Infringement And Validity, UPC_CFI_214/2023, UPC_CFI_403/2025

The Helsinki Local Division of the Unified Patent Court examined infringement proceedings involving EP 3 295 663, with AIM Sport Development AG asserting patent rights against multiple TGI Sport entities across European jurisdictions. The case included a counterclaim for revocation, requiring the court to analyze validity under Articles 54, 56, and 123(2) EPC alongside infringement claims under Article 69 EPC.
FinlandIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg