2026-04-02 - LD Munich - Laitram v. ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems - UPC_CFI_642/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_642/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Laitram L.L.C. v. ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
Kernaussage: GERMAN:
2026-04-02 - LD Munich - Laitram
v.
ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems - UPC_CFI_642/2025
GERMAN:
1. Wenn das Gericht die Parteien auffordert, zu verschiedenen vorgeschlagenen Terminen für die Zwischenanhörung oder die mündliche Verhandlung Stellung zu nehmen, wird von Vertretern vor dem EPG erwartet, dass sie unverzüglich antworten, spätestens jedoch bis zum Ablauf der ihnen gesetzten Frist.
2. Sobald ein Termin festgesetzt wurde, werden später eingereichte Anträge auf Terminsverlegung abgelehnt, sofern nicht erhebliche Gründe, aus denen heraus einem Beteiligten eine Teilnahme für das Gericht erkennbar nicht zumutbar ist, eine Verlegung im Einzelfall rechtfertigen. Die erheblichen Gründe für eine Terminsverlegung müssen mit dem Verlegungsantrag vorgetragen werden, damit sie in die Ermessensentscheidung des Gerichts einfließen können.
3. Dies gilt auch dann, wenn der verspätete Antrag einen anderen, ursprünglich vom Gericht vorgeschlagenen Termin aufgreift. Nach der Abstimmung eines Termins mit den Parteien bleiben mögliche Alternativtermine regelmäßig nicht länger für ein bestimmtes Verfahren reserviert.
ENGLISH:
1. If the Court invites the parties to comment on various proposed dates for the interim conference or the oral hearing, UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly, and no later than the expiration of the deadline set for them.
2. Once a date has been set, subsequent requests for a postponement will be rejected, unless there are substantial grounds which, evident to the Court, make it unreasonable for a party to attend, thereby justifying a postponement in the specific case. The compelling reasons for a postponement must be set out in the application for postponement so that they may be taken into account in the Court’s discretionary decision.
3. This also applies if the late request refers to one of the other dates originally proposed by the Court. Once a date has been agreed upon with the parties, potential alternative dates are generally no longer reserved for a specific proceeding.
notable
The Munich Local Division (Panel 1b — Zigann presiding, Mlakar LQJ, Parrini TQJ, Schnurr LQJ + rapporteur) dismisses ScanBelt's second application to postpone the 8 December 2026 oral hearing in the Laitram v ScanBelt infringement and revocation-counterclaim proceedings (EP 3 251 983 — conveyor belt). The decision crystallises three case-management headnotes that are likely to be cited across UPC divisions: (1) UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly to scheduling invitations, and no later than the deadline set; (2) once a hearing date has been set, postponement applications will be rejected absent substantial grounds — supported by the application — that make attendance unreasonable for a party; (3) those substantial grounds must be set out in the application itself, and after a date has been coordinated with the parties, the alternative dates that were originally proposed are not held in reserve for that proceeding. On the facts, ScanBelt missed the initial deadline to comment on the three proposed dates; once the 8 December 2026 date was set (with ScanBelt's subsequent confirmation that this was its preferred date), the defendant filed a first postponement application on 3 March 2026 citing only that its managing director was unavailable. That request was denied on 6 March 2026 for inadequate substantiation; ScanBelt did not seek leave to appeal within 15 days. The second application of 17 March 2026 was substantively a repetition with the unspecified addition that the MD's unavailability was due to an 'internal company event' — no evidence offered. The Court reaffirms that the right to be heard (Art. 42, 52(1) UPCA; R. 264, 112-115 RoP) and the expediency / procedural-concentration principle (R. 9.2, 9.3(b), 343.2(a) RoP) must be balanced, and that substantial grounds for postponement are exceptional circumstances of such weight that they override expediency — typically where the right to be heard cannot otherwise be ensured. None of those exist here: the MD may send a duly-informed representative. The previously-proposed 10 December 2026 alternative is no longer available because the panel has since been expanded with the TQJ and another hearing has been scheduled in the same week. Leave to appeal is denied as the order is a discretionary Einzelfallentscheidung.
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).