Key takeaways
Rule 30.2 RoP leaves open the time of a decision on the admission of a subsequent request for amendment of the patent
✓
The time of the decision is at the discretion of the court. The judge-rapporteur may postpone such a decision. A rejecting order is not required. As long as the subsequent request for amendment has not been admitted by the court, it is inadmissible.
Insofar as Rule 32.1 RoP mentions a two-month time limit for replying to a request for amendment of the patent from notification of the request for amendment, subsequent requests for amendment under Rule 30.2 RoP are not covered by this
✓
Not every amendment, even a minor one, to the auxiliary requests originally submitted necessitates the exchange of three further written submissions, each with legally standardized one- or two-month deadlines. This would delay the proceedings significantly.
Division
Local Division Duesseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_363_2023
Type of proceedings
Infringement and revocation action, procedural order
Parties
Plaintiff: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Defendants: expert e-Commerce GmbH; expert klein GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 3 926 698 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 30.2, 32.1 RoP
