2025-03-31 - LD Munich - Jingao Solar v. Astronergy et al. - UPC_CFI_425/2024

1. Rule 30 RoP does not restrict the patentee in its request to amend the patent to the requirement that the application and the corresponding auxiliary requests must be directly related to the grounds for invalidity asserted in the counterclaim for revocation. 2. If dependent patent claims are made the subject of auxiliary requests within an application according to Rule 30 RoP, it must also be possible for the patentee to make corresponding amendments with regard to the infringement action. Otherwise, although it would be possible to amend the patent, infringement of such an amended version could not be the subject of the corresponding infringement action. 3. It It is the aim of the Rules of Procedure to synchronise proceedings before the UPC with those before the EPO. However, such synchronisation can only work if is possible to introduce claim versions amended by the EPO into (infringement) proceedings before the UPC.

The Local Division Munich granted an application for leave to change claim (Rule 263) by the patentee to adjust the infringement action to the application to amend the patent (Rule 30). The Court stated that the auxiliary requests raised in a Rule 30 application did not have to directly correspond to the grounds for invalidity asserted in the counterclaim for revocation. It further stated that amendments to the infringement actions must be possible to reflect the auxiliary requests that were made.