1. Key takeaways
Deadline Extensions due to R. 242A RoP applications in FRAND proceedings
If the Defendant deals extensively with license negotiations
between itself and a patent pool in the context of the
substantiation of the FRAND objection raised by it, the Claimant
can only respond comprehensively to this argument if he can consult
with employees of the patent pool.
If the Claimant is initially prevented from such consultation by an
application for the protection of trade secrets (R. 262A RoP), his
right to be heard can be taken into account by setting a time limit
for his reply. The Claimant's right to be heard can be
satisfied by extending the time limit for responding to this
submission upon request.
Even if an application for protection of trade secrets only relates
to a definable part of a pleading, such as the statements on the
FRAND objection, a partial extension of the time limit, limited to
the part concerned, can be waived in the interests of effective
conduct of the proceedings and to prevent a permanent divergence of
the deadlines.
The time extension for the entire brief may only be granted if the
conduct of the oral hearing is not jeopardized.
2. Division
LD Duesseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_457/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings, counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant: Dolby International AB,
Intervener: Access Advance LLC
Defendants:
HP Deutschland GmbH
HP Inc.
HP International SARL
HP Austria GmbH
HP France SAS
HP Belgium SPRL
HP Inc Danmark ApS
HP Finland Oy
HP Italy S.r.l.
Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV
HP PPS Sverige AB
HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda.
Hewlett-Packard d.o.o.
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA
HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 490 258 B1
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9.3 RoP, R. 29 (a) RoP
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.