LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_745/2024

A broadly phrased motion for damages can include damages from ancillary transactions, even if not explicitly stated.

The court interpreted the Claimant’s initial motion for “all damages” to include profits from sales of sealing materials and service contracts connected to the allegedly infringing machines, based on the Claimant’s arguments and requests for information in the statement of claim.

Clarifying a motion’s wording without changing its substance is admissible and does not require a formal application under Rule 263 RoP.

The court allowed a clarifying amendment specifying the damages related to sealing materials and service contracts, as it didn’t alter the motion’s substance but merely clarified an “obvious oversight.”

Decisions on leave to amend, especially those impacting damage calculations, can be postponed until after the oral hearing for clarification.

The court postponed the decision on fully granting leave to amend regarding the Defendant’s liability for damages from ancillary transactions. This was to allow further consideration of whether the motion for damages should be determined in the infringement proceedings or reserved for separate damages proceedings.