2026-07-15 - LD Düsseldorf - Boa Technology v. FLA Europe et al. - UPC-CFI-0000996/2025

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: [Note: this is the companion action to UPC_CFI_998/2025 (node 183796); the same Düsseldorf Local Division panel issued a materially identical R. 9.2/R. 9.3(a) RoP order on the same day (15 July 2026) in both actions between the same parties, differing only in the patent in suit (here EP 3 003 087 B1) and the case numbers. Classified per node.] The Düsseldorf Local Division (judge-rapporteur Granata) granted Boa a retroactive extension of time under R. 9.3(a) RoP to regularise its Reply, Application to Amend and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, which had been filed on 4 May 2026 without a separate electronic signature. Bound by the Court of Appeal's clarification in SharkNinja v SEB (UPC_CoA_61/2026, 22 May 2026) that written pleadings must themselves be signed under R. 4.1 RoP, the Court nonetheless held the representative's error excusable: at the time of filing there was no CoA case law on whether the CMS signature step sufficed, the representative had filed unsigned in earlier proceedings without objection, and the principles of fairness and equity (Preamble RoP 5) justified the retroactive extension (which R. 9.3(a) RoP expressly permits). It preserved 4 May 2026 as the original filing date under R. 9.2 RoP because the pleadings had been lodged within the applicable time limit and caused no procedural prejudice to Defendant 2 (who had filed its Rejoinder on 6 July 2026), and confirmed that the extension did not affect the subsequent written-procedure deadlines. That the same representative had electronically signed the parallel filing in UPC_CFI_1141/2025 did not render the error inexcusable.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC-CFI-0000996/2025