2024-02-21 - LD Düsseldorf - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_355/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_355/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Procedural Order
- Parteien:
- FUJIFILM Corporation / Kodak GmbH a. o.
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-02-21 - LD Düsseldorf - Fujifilm
v.
Kodak - UPC_CFI_355/2023
1.Although the Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim for revocation, the parties shall make use of the official forms available online. In practice, this means that the Counterclaim for revocation must also be filed in the workflow provided for this purpose by the CMS. Only when this requirement has been met is the Counterclaim for revocation properly filed.
2. Where the defendant has filed a Statement of defence in due time in accordance with the requirements of Rule 25.1 RoP, the time limit for filing the Counterclaim for revocation in the dedicated workflow of the CMS may be extended retrospectively upon request (Rule 9.3 (a) RoP) and subject to the following conditions: Firstly, the defendant must have already made a first attempt to file the Counterclaim for revocation in due time in the workflow provided for this purpose before the expiry of the time limit. Secondly, the defendant must have uploaded the Counterclaim for revocation to the correct workflow without culpable delay after the expiry of the deadline.
notable
The Düsseldorf LD held that a counterclaim for revocation is only properly filed under R. 25.1 RoP (in combination with R. 4.1 RoP) when uploaded to the dedicated CMS workflow, not merely by inclusion in the Statement of Defence. It granted a retrospective one-day extension of that filing deadline under R. 9.3(a) RoP and articulated a two-prong test: (i) the defendant must have attempted a first filing in the correct workflow before expiry, and (ii) the defendant must have uploaded the counterclaim to the correct workflow without culpable delay after expiry. Because the deadline was extended, the claimant's motion for a default decision under R. 355(1)(a)/R. 277 RoP and its request to reject the counterclaims were dismissed. By agreement between the parties, the claimant's rejoinder and defence-to-counterclaim deadlines were also extended.
Stichwörter
Statement of defence; Counterclaim for revocation; time period; deadline; extension of a time limit; retrospectively; CMS; workflow