Key takeaways
Requests, facts and evidence from first instance automatically form part of appeal proceedings (R. 222.1 and R. 222.2 RoP)
The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response. The judge-rapporteur rejected this application, finding no justification for reopening the written procedure at the appeal stage.
The Court clarified that there is no obligation for a respondent to “refile” auxiliary requests on appeal. Since the respondent’s auxiliary requests had been expressly admitted into first-instance proceedings, they remained part of the appeal without any additional procedural step. The appellant’s argument that it could not have anticipated the respondent’s procedural choices was dismissed.
The request for further written pleadings (R. 36 RoP) was rejected as auxiliary requests were already part of first-instance proceedings.
R. 226 RoP does not relieve the appellant from addressing auxiliary requests that formed part of the first-instance record
The appellant argued that because the Court of First Instance had not ruled on the auxiliary requests, it was not required to address them in its Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The judge-rapporteur disagreed, holding that the appellant should have addressed them if it wished to add arguments beyond what was submitted at first instance (within the limits of R. 222.2 RoP).
The absence of delay to the case timeline is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for allowing further pleadings
The appellant argued that permitting an additional round of pleadings would not alter the Court’s timeline. The judge-rapporteur rejected this reasoning, clarifying that procedural convenience alone cannot justify additional written exchanges.
Due process is satisfied where the appellant could address the issues at first instance, in its appeal brief, and at oral hearing (R. 35(a) RoP)
The judge-rapporteur found no violation of due process, fairness, equity or the right to be heard. The appellant had the opportunity to comment on the auxiliary requests during first-instance proceedings and in its Statement of Grounds of Appeal. It would further have the opportunity to respond to the respondent’s arguments at the oral hearing.
Division
Court of Appeal (appealed decision from Central Division Paris)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_884/2025 (first instance: UPC_CFI_231/2024, ACT_27463/2024)
Type of proceedings
Appeal – procedural order on request for further written pleadings in a revocation action
Parties
Appellant (Claimant in first instance )
Sibio Technology Limited (Hong Kong)
vs.
Respondent (Defendant in first instance)
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (USA)
Patent(s)
EP 3 831 283
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 36 RoP, R. 35(a) RoP, R. 220.1(a) RoP, R. 222.1 RoP, R. 222.2 RoP, R. 226 RoP, R. 333.1 RoP
