Topics: R. 263 RoP
-
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_745/2024
Broad interpretation of motion for damages: 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…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_745/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_200/2025)
No special treatment for amendments in counterclaims for revocation: The Rules of Procedure on amendments apply equally to counterclaims for revocation as to infringement actions; no leniency is afforded to counterclaimants. All grounds for revocation and supporting documents must be included with the initial counterclaim. Late-filed prior art faces strict scrutiny: New prior art can…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023
No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 11, 2025, Amendment of claim and addition of a defendant, UPC_CoA_169/2025
Discretion of the Court of First Instance when applying Rules on amendment of claims and addition of parties (Rule 263 and 305 RoP).: The Court of First Instance has a broad discretion when considering allowance of amendments to claims and the addition of parties under Rule 263 and 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal clarified…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, April 7, 2025, Order concerning R. 263 and R. 265 RoP, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Rule 263(3) RoP allows for unconditional limitation of claims, covering both the relief sought and the cause of action.: Rule 263(3) RoP applies if a patentee asserts a plurality of patents and then renounces one of them. Therefore, Rule 265 RoP concerning the case in which theClaimant withdraws the action – all its claims –…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_483/2024
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…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, February 11, 2025, procedural order regarding changes in a case, UPC_CFI_214/2013
The main issues to be considered when addressing the admissibility of changes in a case are that the nature of the frontloaded procedure of the UPC must be protected and that during the process there are no such changes that the defendant’s right to defence is compromised.: If these two premises are protected there is…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, December 23, 2024, oder concerning an application for a discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP)
Unconditional right to limit claims for damages (R. 263.3 RoP): An unconditional application to reduce the amount of damages claimed shall be considered as an unconditional application under Rule 263.3 RoP. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted. Procedure for determining the value of the action (R. 22, 104,…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 21, 2024, Order, UPC_CoA_456/2024
Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” requiring a party to apply for leave under R. 263 RoP. : A case is amended when the nature or scope of the dispute changes. For example, in an infringement case, this occurs if the plaintiff invokes a different patent or objects to a different…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 6, 2024, application for leave to change claim, UPC_CFI_41/2024
Strict application of R. 263.1 RoP regarding a party’s application for leave to change its claim: Pursuant to R. 263.2 RoP, leave shall not be granted if the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage and (b) the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, May 14, 2024, Request for leave to change claim, UPC_CFI_457/2023
The concretization of the claims by the claimant is not a mere clarification, but a subsequent unconditional and therefore always admissible limitation/change of the claim within the meaning of R. 263 (3) RoP: According to the wording of the statement of claim, the action was initially directed against all computers and electronic end devices of…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 11 December 2023, order of the court of first instance of the UPC, UPC_CFI_9/2023, ACT_459771/2023, App_587438/2023
the termination of limitation proceedings for such patent is admissible.: Rule 263 RoP allows the amendment of a pending case under certain conditions. In this case, the Plaintiff extended the pending complaint by asserting claims from a further patent, after the limitation proceedings for this patent were concluded. The court found this extension to be…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.