Topics: R. 30 RoP
-
CD Paris, 7 January 2026, Decision in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_433/2024
An application to substantively amend a patent is only admissible if a full, consolidated set of claims is filed in time with the deadline of the application (R. 30 RoP): The Court cannot redraft claims for a party due to the principle of judicial neutrality. Amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstruction, ensuring clarity…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_425/2024
Patent owners are not restricted in amending patents to counterclaims for revocation: The patentee may also request amendments to the patent that are not directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim. The purpose of Rule 30 RoP is to give the patentee the opportunity to ‘save’ its patent in an amended…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, January 13, 2025, revised order on auxiliary requests, UPC_CFI_298/2023
The number of 55 auxiliary requests can be reasonable: Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds of invalidity raised), the importance of the patent at issue and the…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, November 5, 2024, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_309/2023
R. 30 (1) (c) RoP does not set out the consequence that all amendments proposed (auxiliary requests) should be dismissed en bloc as not meeting the criterion of being reasonable in number.: Only some of the proposed auxiliary requests may be admitted. The Court can limit a patent by an amendment of the claims and…
7 min Reading time→ -
Central Division, Paris Seat, 19 July 2024, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_255/2023
Concurrent pendency of invalidity proceedings before different divisions and criteria for exercising the Court’s discretion, Art. 33 (3) UPCA: In the situation of concurrently pending invalidity attacks by different parties against the same patent before different divisions (here: revocation action before CD and counterclaim(s) for revocation before LD) the local division has a discretion either…
8 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.