Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Hamburg Local Division » LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026

LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026

Marius Fischer

2 min Reading time

Download decision(s) (PDF)

2026-03-31_LD_Hamburg_UPC_CFI_360-2026

Key takeaways

A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP.

✓

Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the defendants’ request for alignment of the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is reasonable.

While a claimant is not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bears the risk of deviating service dates if it waited to arrange payment for service in the U.S. in due course after the request of the sub-registry.

✓

Division

Local Division Hamburg

UPC number

UPC_CFI_360/2026

Type of proceedings

Infringement Action

Parties

INFOBLOX INC., INFOBLOX GERMANY GMBH, NOMIOS GERMANY GMBH

Nixu FL IP Protection LLC

Patent(s)

EP 2 005 696

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3 (a) RoP

Was the article helpful?

Stay in the loop

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

Yes, I consent to the collection, processing and use of my above-mentioned personal data for the purposes of processing my message and for the purposes of contacting me via email. The legal basis of the processing shall be formed by my consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR. The data will be deleted three months after expiry of the purpose, provided that longer retention periods are not required by law. I can revoke this consent with future effect at any time. I have taken note of the privacy statement and consent to it. With regard to the processing of my data, I am entitled to inalienable rights, information on which can be found in the privacy statement.

* = Required field

A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP.

While a claimant is not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bears the risk of deviating service dates if it waited to arrange payment for service in the U.S. in due course after the request of the sub-registry.

Stay in the loop

CoA, September 3, 2026, Order concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection (R. 192 RoP), UPC_CoA_113/2026

Court of Appeal, August 28, 2026, Decision UPC_CoA_678/2025

LD Brussels, September 3, 2026, procedural order on time limits after stay of proceedings is lifted, UPC_CFI_871/2026

LD Düsseldorf, September 2, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_297/2025, UPC_CFI_651/2025

Court of Appeal, August 31, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_312/2025

LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP.

While a claimant is not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bears the risk of deviating service dates if it waited to arrange payment for service in the U.S. in due course after the request of the sub-registry.

Division

UPC number

Type of proceedings

Parties

Patent(s)

Body of legislation / Rules

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Stay in the loop