Key takeaways
Rule 296.3 RoP is to be understood to mean that, after stayed proceedings are resumed, the applicable time limits continue to run from the date of the order resuming the proceedings, taking into account the time limits that had already expired prior to the stay of the proceedings.
Rule 296.3 RoP reads as follows: “While proceedings are stayed, time shall cease to run for the purposes of procedural periods. Time shall begin to run afresh for the purposes of procedural periods from the date on which the stay of proceedings comes to an end.”
As the Court points out, the term “afresh” is ambiguous and could be understood to mean that time limits start “anew”, i.e. the full time limit starting from the beginning is granted, or that the clock starts “again”, after it ceased to run, for the remainder of the time limit. The Court also points to the existing case law of various divisions, which interpret Rule 296.3 RoP differently (Munich Local Division of 26 August 2025, UPC CFI 559/2025, Shangrao v. LONGi) Hamburg Local Division of 16 January 2025, UPC CFI 169/2024, Daedalus v. Xiaomi, Nord-Baltic Regional Division dated August 16, August 2024, UPC_CFI_8/2023, Edwards v. Meril).
Based on a detailed analysis of the wording of both sentences of Rule 296.3 RoP, the nature of a stay, as well as the different language versions of Rule 263.3 RoP, the Court comes to the conclusion that, after a stay of the proceedings is lifted, time limits should continue to run taking into account the time that passed before the stay (instead of starting anew from the beginning).
Division
Brussels Local Division
UPC number
UPC_CFI_871/2026
Type of proceedings
Procedural order in infringement action
Parties
CLAIMANT:
In(k)control BV (Deinze, Belgium)
DEFENDANTS:
1. Esko-Graphics BV (Ghent, Belgium)
2. Esko Software BV (Ghent, Belgium)
Patent(s)
EP 3 841 735
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 296.3 RoP
