Key takeaways
Amendment of case (Rule 263 RoP)
The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Reasonable Diligence Requirement (Rule 263.2(a) RoP)
The claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in filing the amendment. The claimant became aware of the restoration decision on 7 November 2024 but did not file the application until 17 January 2025.
Impact on Defendants’ Conduct (Rule 263.2(b) RoP)
The amendment would not unreasonably hinder the defendants. The subject matter of the proceedings was independent of the countries included in the operative part.
Attribution of Knowledge and Good Faith Element
The court found it unnecessary to decide whether the patent attorney’s knowledge was attributable to the claimant. The claimant still failed to act with reasonable diligence.
The court acknowledged the claimant’s potential initial good faith but emphasized the lack of diligence. The claimant did not act promptly once aware of the restoration decision.
Division
Local Division Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_483/2024
Type of proceedings
Infringement Action
Parties
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
vs.
XSYS Germany GmbH
XSYS Prepress N.V.
XSYS Italia S.r.l.
Patent(s)
EP 3 742 231
Jurisdictions
Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 263, 263.2, 263.3 RoP
