LD Paris, July 18, 2026, time extension request, UPC_CFI_1963/2025, UPC_CFI_1247/2026

Where an unredacted version of a brief (marked highly confidential “HC” in the CMS, only accessible to the court) is filed simultaneously with a redacted version (marked mutual “M” in the CMS, accessible to the parties), the party seeking access must promptly request reclassification from the Registry or the opposing party’s representative rather than remain passiv (p. 3, penultimate paragraph).

A party cannot rely on its own failure/negligence to request access to an unredacted document already uploaded by the opposing party (about one month ago) within a reasonable time to justify an extension of the deadline to submit the next brief. The court may reject such a request under R. 9.3 RoP where the alleged obstacle results from the requesting party’s own inaction (p. 4, fifth and sixth paragraphs).

If the redacted version of a party’s brief indicates that the redacted passages consist solely of portions of documents belonging to the opposing party, then it can be assumed that the opposing party is already familiar with the content (p. 4).

Although the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are two separate tracks, they are linked within the CMS. No prejudice arises from filing in only one track, particularly where the opposing party previously adopted an identical approach by filing a single combined brief itself (p. 4, first paragraph).