Key takeaways
The main issues to be considered when addressing the admissibility of changes in a case are that the nature of the frontloaded procedure of the UPC must be protected and that during the process there are no such changes that the defendant’s right to defence is compromised.
If these two premises are protected there is discretion for the Court to accept changes (see also the Court of Appeal of UPC (CoA), order of 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024, APL_44633/2024 re Rule 263 RoP)
A party and other territories may be added if the right of defence of defendants, including the new party are sufficiently guaranteed, R. 305 RoP.
Adding a party and new territories was accepted since otherwise separate proceedings would be initiated and the issue of joining the cases based on R. 340 RoP would emerge. It was ensured that despite the changes defendant has three months to answer. The UPC system is based on the presumption of R. 23 RoP that three months are sufficient for defendants to present their defence.
The amendments to the case must be explained in R. 263 RoP application but can be detailed in an appendix.
Based on the R. 263 RoP “any such application shall explain why such change or amendment was not included in the original pleading”. Hence the rule does not require that the amendments are presented in detail in the application but only that they are explained in the application.
Division
LD Helsinki
UPC number
UPC_CFI_214/2023, ACT_545571/2023, App_1205/2025
Type of proceedings
Infringement Action
Parties
APPLICANT:
- AIM Sport Development AG
DEFENDANTS:
- TGI Sport Suomi Oy (previously Supponor Oy)
- TGI Sport Virtual Limited (previously Supponor Limited)
- Supponor SASU
- Supponor Italia SRL
- Supponor España SL
Patent(s)
EP 3 295 663
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 23, 263, 305 RoP
