1. Key takeaways
Time extension only in exceptional cases
The power to extend a time limit should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases (see UPC CFI 363/2023 LD Düsseldorf, order of 20 January 2024). A deadline set by the Rules of Procedures may only be extended in case a party alleges and gives evidence that it will not be able or was not able to meet it because of a fact that makes the submission of a document or the arrangement of an adequate content of a pleading in the due time objectively impossible or very difficult. An impossibility or an extreme difficulty to meet the deadline which is attributable to the party requesting the extension of the deadline or its representative does not come into consideration, as it may not be deemed as objective.
Timely request for time extension
The implementation of the principle of fair trial obliges a party to submit a request for time extension as soon as it appears clear that the meeting of the deadline will not be possible. Submitting a request to extend a time period on the last day of it, in a situation in which the reason for that request arose – according to the applicant's for time extension own allegation – well before, may be appreciated as non-complying with the principle of fairness that must guide the procedural activities of the parties.
Evidence of impossibility
The allegation that applicant's representative attempted to access the case documents on that date, but he was unable to do so at the time despite his best efforts turned out to be lacking of a relevant evidence.
Similarly, the allegation that the defendant's long-standing European Patent Attorney had taken ill during December 2023 and had to take a more extended sick leave than the one originally requested appears to be devoid of sufficient evidence.
Solution in appropriate time
Party's representative waiting for the smart card verification device (for obtaining access to the 'CMS') after the service of the statement of claim (and the reception of the information concerning the lodging of the revocation action) is expected to seek a solution in an appropriate time and act accordingly (for example, by submitting requests to the Court or the Registry).
2. Division
Central Division Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_412/2023
4. Type of proceedings
request for time extension for delivery statement of defence in revocation action
5. Parties
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (claimant in revocation action)
ITCiCo Spain S.L. (defendant in revocation action)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 796 333
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9 RoP, Rule 334 RoP, Rule 49.1 RoP
2024-02-09-CD-Paris-UPC_CFI_412-2023 ORD_4804-2024-App_4285-2024 anonymised
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.
