2025-02-20 - LD Brussels - Hyler et al. v. Cretes et al. - UPC_CFI_216/2024; UPC_CFI_556/2024

The Court may authorise an agreed schedule of conclusions if it does not deviate substantially from the legal schedule of conclusions (linked to the time limit) reflected in the rules (RoP) and, more specifically, if it is in line with the legal schedule (time-related), given that only the (legal) deadline for filing conclusions was agreed. In order for a non-infringement claim to be allowed or not, a request in application of R. 263 RoP (‘Leave to change claim or amend case’) must be submitted to the Court and the procedure outlined must be followed. In the absence of such a request, the non-infringement claim should not be considered in the further assessment of the litigation. Raising the non-infringement claim with regard to new, intended products, or at least product variants, changes the nature and scope of the litigation. For the same reason, the arguments and new documents in support of the non-infringement claim should not be considered in the further assessment of the litigation.

In this order (only available in Dutch), the Brussels Local Division rejected an application not to consider a submission as it was allegedly filed too late. The parties had previously agreed to an adjusted schedule and one of the parties had then filed their submission a day early - when the other party then filed their corresponding submission on the agreed date, said first party argued that it was too late because the Rules of Procedure state that the deadline was triggered by the submission. The Court found that this was not the case where a specific schedule had been agreed upon.