Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » LD Hamburg, 5 December 2023, procedural court order on reply deadlines, UPC_CFI_54/2023

LD Hamburg, 5 December 2023, procedural court order on reply deadlines, UPC_CFI_54/2023

Gabriela Tröger

2 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

A concurrence of the deadlines for the reply to the Statement of defense and the Defense to a Counterclaim for revocation is necessary for reasons of procedural economy and in view of the right to be heard.

✓

Such concurrence is particularly appropriate because the content of the Statement of defense is important for the drafting of the Defense to a Counterclaim for revocation.

An Application to determine the deadline for the Defense to a Counterclaim for revocation and its reasoning may prove to be a genuine Application for a time extension.

✓

Division

Local Division Hamburg

UPC number

UPC_CFI_54/2023

Type of proceedings

Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation

Parties

Applicant and Claimant: Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited

Defendants: 1. Tesla Germany GmbH 2. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE

Patent(s)

EP 1 612 910

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3(a) RoP

2023-12-05 LD Hamburg UPC_CFI_54_2023 ORD_589355-2023 ACT_463258-2023 anonymizedDownload

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

  • Mannheim Local Division

    LD Mannheim, January 20, 2026, application for the imposition of penalties, UPC_CFI_365/2023

    Enforcement of UPC orders in non-UPC territories requires prior recognition by national courts, but information orders can be enforced against defendants within the UPC territory (Art. 34 UPCA): The Court stresses that UPC decisions have automatic effect only within Contracting Member States. Outside that territory, they are treated as foreign judgments and must first be …
    →
  • Duesseldorf Local Division

    LD Düsseldorf, January 29, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_571/2024

    In bifurcated cases, a Local Division is bound by a Central Division’s decision amending patent claims, which then forms the basis for its infringement analysis: In a bifurcated setup, the Local Division hearing infringement cannot ignore amendments made by the Central Division in parallel revocation proceedings. Once the Milan Central Division amended EP 3 756 …
    →
  • Paris Local Division

    Local Division Paris, January 23, 2026, Final order, UPC_CFI_808/2025

    A three-month preparation period for a complex provisional measures application is not an unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP, considering the technical complexity and multiple patents involved: The Court held that “delay” runs from when the applicant has, or should have, enough facts and evidence to file with a reasonable prospect of success (R. 206.2 …
    →

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field