Court of Appeal, April 11, 2025, Amendment of claim and addition of a defendant, UPC_CoA_169/2025

The Court of First Instance has a broad discretion when considering allowance of amendments to claims and the addition of parties under Rule 263 and 305 RoP.

The Court of Appeal clarified that its review of such decisions is limited to whether the Court of First Instance acted outside the bounds of its discretion. The appellant must prove that the Local Division exceeded its discretion and made unreasonable decisions in the challenged orders (see headnote 1).

The Court clarified that while the reasoning for amendments must be included in the application itself, the specific wording can be presented in annexes, such as marked-up versions of the amended Statements of claim (see headnote 2).

The Court of Appeal supports the inclusion of detailed changes in annexes, as it enhances legal certainty and procedural efficiency. It allows for immediate service of the final Statement if the request is allowed, and simplifies the process if only part of the request is approved.

When considering a request to add a person as a party under Rule 305 RoP, the Court evaluates several factors, including whether the claimant was or should have been aware of the alleged infringing acts earlier, the involvement of other parties with the alleged infringer, the impact on other parties if the new party is added, and the stage of the proceedings. The burden of presenting and proving these circumstances is lower for requests under Rule 305 RoP compared to the merits of the case. The Court has discretion in weighing the evidence, relevant circumstances, and interests of the parties, as well as procedural efficiency (see headnote 3).

In this case, the Court found that adding a defendant is justified when that defendant is potentially jointly liable for the alleged infringement. The addition of the new defendant was deemed appropriate due to its alleged joint infringement with the existing defendants and the risk of irreconcilable inconsistent decisions if separate proceedings were initiated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division’s decision to include both German and Spanish territories in the case, emphasizing procedural efficiency and the avoidance of inconsistent and irreconcilable decisions.

The Local Division has the discretion to balance the potential delay in proceedings caused by adding the territory of Spain under the new CJEU case law against the risk of the respondent initiating separate proceedings for the Spanish territory, which could lead to inconsistent and irreconcilable decisions. The appellants have not convincingly demonstrated that the Local Division’s decision was unreasonable.