Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 MARCH 2024

UPC Procedure: Concise Further Written Submissions Allowed After Rejoinder

Marks & Clerk
Marks & Clerk
Contributor
Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk

Marks & Clerk LLP was founded in 1887 by George Croydon Marks, who was joined in partnership by...

View firm profile
Explore more from Marks & Clerk

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.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

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".

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