LD The Hague, February 18, 2026, application to amend, UPC_CFI_616/2025

The Court found the claimant’s request for relief against infringing products “and/or further versions or variants thereof” was already broad enough to cover the new product.

Even if one would consider the adding of the new product as a change of claim or amendment of the case according to R. 263 RoP the amendment was admissible as the claimant acted with diligence following EU marketing approval, and the defendant was not unreasonably hindered as the new product’s composition was similar.

The Court allowed the claimant’s new evidence and arguments, finding they were a direct response to the defendant’s positions on non-infringement and claim construction in the statement of defense and therefore dismissed defendant’s R. 9 RoP application taht aimed at dismissing late-filed submissions and arguments.

The Court held that a claimant need not anticipate every defense argument in its initial claim, and the defendant would have sufficient opportunity to respond both, in one more written round and during the oral hearing.

The Court was not convinced that 40 auxiliary requests were justified by the defendant’s limited and reasonable number of invalidity attacks and questioned their manageability within the UPC’s expedited timeline.

Instead of limiting the requests, the Court ordered the claimant to submit a comprehensive tabular overview of its auxiliary requests, clearly indicating which (combination of) features is introduced with each auxiliary request and indicating in one column which validity attacks are addressed.