Key takeaways
The time period for responding to a counterclaim for revocation and the time period for the reply to the statement of defense should run in parallel
In a case in which the statement of defense includes trade secrets but the counterclaim for revocation does not, and in which access to an unredacted version of the statement of defense for party representatives of Claimants was delayed, a parallel run of the time period for the reply and the time period for the response to the counterclaim for revocation is not only procedurally economical, but is also required in view of the right to be heard. The content of the statement of defense, including the protected information contained therein, is important for the drafting of the defence against the counterclaim for revocation, since the disputed use of the claimed teaching constitutes the central subject matter of the patent infringement action.
Division
Hamburg Local Division
UPC number
UPC_CFI_22/2023
Type of proceedings
Infringement action, Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
10x Genomics, Inc.
President and Fellows of Harvard College
Vizgen, Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 4 108 782
Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9.3 RoP, Rule 29.1 RoP, Rule 30.1.b RoP, Rule 262A RoP
