2026-08-17 - LD Düsseldorf - Boa Technology v. FLA Europe et al. - UPC-CFI-0000996/2025

The judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division declined to rule on a patentee's R. 30.2 RoP application for permission to lodge a further set of auxiliary requests and instead stayed its assessment, leaving both the main and the alternative request to the panel during or after the oral hearing. To keep the proceedings moving he provisionally allowed the new requests into the case, holding that the extra burden this places on the defendants is outweighed by the efficient organisation of the proceedings under the overarching principle of flexibility in Preamble 4 of the Rules of Procedure. He noted that the defendants had not commented on the alternative request and that this could be treated as acceptance, but declined to do so because that would hamper the assessment of the main proceedings and unreasonably hinder the defendants' further pleadings. To restore the balance he granted the defendants an additional term for their rejoinder, set by reference to the standard timeframe for responding to an application to amend the patent, and ordered the patentee to plead on the consequences of the Court of Appeal's decision of 13 July 2026 in Fujifilm v Kodak for its own application.