Court of Appeal, March 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_678/2025

Under Part 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the appellant may file a Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the respondent a Statement of Response. No further written pleadings are provided for unless a cross-appeal has been lodged pursuant to Rules 237 and 238 RoP. Additional grounds of appeal filed outside the time limit under Rule 224.2 RoP are inadmissible pursuant to Rule 233.3 RoP.

The Court may allow further written pleadings at a party’s reasoned request under Rule 36 RoP, but only where principles of due process — including fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard — so require. This discretionary power is not exercised automatically; a specific justification must be demonstrated.

The respondents’ inadmissibility arguments against the appellant’s new auxiliary requests were raised merely as a defence under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP and were a legitimate, expected part of the adversarial process.

Similarly, the respondents’ new prior art documents — all publicly available — were filed in direct response to the appellant’s new auxiliary requests introduced for the first time on appeal and could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.

The appellant waited approximately two months after the Statement of Response before lodging its application, despite knowing the proceedings were expected to be ready for oral hearing. The Court held that the principles of equality of arms (Art. 42(2) UPCA) and efficient conduct of proceedings (Art. 41(3) UPCA) required rejection, as the parties would have the opportunity to address each other’s positions at the scheduled oral hearing.