LD Munich, July 4, 2024, Orders On Deadlines And Confidentiality, UPC_CFI_220/2023

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The deadline for submitting a Rejoinder to the Reply only runs from the time at which defendants have been served with a completely unredacted Reply to the Statement of defence.
Germany Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

1. Key takeaways

The deadline for submitting a Rejoinder to the Reply only runs from the time at which defendants have been served with a completely unredacted Reply to the Statement of defence.

Defendants have the right to defend themselves comprehensively, uniformly and in full knowledge of all the Claimant's submissions in the Reply to the Statement of defence and by exhausting the deadlines provided for by the Rules of Procedure.

If there is a partially redacted Reply to the Statement of defence, defendants are not required to first defend themselves partially against the unredacted part.

Defendants shall not be forced to submit applications for time extension with an uncertain outcome.

This does not affect the running of the deadline for filing pleadings relating to the Counterclaim for revocation and relating to the (auxiliary) Application to amend the patent.

The attack on validity is legally independent of the FRAND defence.
Redactions to this defence generally have no effect on the validity dispute.

The resulting divergence of deadlines in the infringement dispute and the validity dispute is not disadvantageous, but rather appropriate in order not to shorten the preparation time for the usually highly complex technical issues.

Rule 29(d) RoP does not preclude this.

Division

Local Division Munich

UPC number

UPC_CFI_220/2023

Type of proceedings

Main proceedings

Parties

Defendants and Respondents: Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH

Appellant: Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Patent(s)

EP 3 024 163

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 9.2 RoP, Rule 29(d) RoP, Rule 262A RoP

LD Munich, July 4, 2024, orders on deadlines and confidentiality, UPC_CFI_220/2023 » UPC Law

To view the full article, 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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More