Key takeaways
Requests for further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP are assessed through a two-pronged balancing test weighing the party’s reasons against the impact on proceedings and delay risk.
✓
- The Court must take into account the reasons put forward by the requesting party as to why further pleadings are necessary.
- The Court must also weigh the impact of further pleadings on the further course of the proceedings and the associated risk of delay.
A request for additional pleadings must be substantiated with specific reasons; vague assertions about objectionable statements without identifying concrete new facts are insufficient (R. 36 RoP).
✓
- The claimant merely stated it had identified “a couple of statements” in the defendants’ submissions that should be disregarded, without specifying any concrete new facts it wished to address, rendering the request too vague to justify allowing further pleadings.
- Even assuming provisionally in the claimant’s favor that it had not received the defendants’ submissions before the date alleged, and leaving open whether the defendants had acted in accordance with procedural rules, the request was still rejected on grounds of insufficient specificity.
Denying additional written pleadings does not unduly restrict the right to be heard where procedural objections and the oral hearing remain available as safeguards.
✓
- The claimant retains the right to oppose the defendants’ submissions, i.e., procedural objections remain available.
- Even if any alleged new facts or arguments in the defendants’ rejoinder are accepted, the claimant has ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing, which the Court views as a meaningful procedural safeguard for ensuring fairness.
A procedural order under R. 36 RoP may be issued by the judge-rapporteur acting alone.
✓
The order was issued by legally qualified Judge Dr. Rinken acting alone in his capacity as judge-rapporteur, confirming that decisions on requests for further written pleadings do not require the full panel.
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Type of proceedings
Main proceedings (infringement / counterclaim for revocation) – Procedural Order on further exchange of written pleadings
Parties
Claimant / Counterdefendant: Hologic, Inc.
Defendants / Counterclaimants: Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
Patent(s)
EP 2 352 431 B1
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 36 RoP
