2024-08-02 - 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:
- Order
- Parteien:
- FUJIFILM vs Kodak
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-08-02 - LD Düsseldorf - Fujifilm
v.
Kodak - UPC_CFI_355/2023
1. If auxiliary requests filed in the context of an application for amendment of the patent are to be amended later, the scope of R. 263 RoP is not open from the outset. The conditions under which applications for amendment of the patent are admissible are laid down in R. 30 RoP.
2. If an application for amendment of a patent is to be amended, such a request is to be classified as a further request for amendment within the meaning of Rule 30.2 RoP. It is admissible only with the permission of the Court.
3. In the light of Art. 34 UPCA and the requirements of - as a rule - a uniform decision, the territorial limitation of an application to amend the patent should only be considered if there are objective reasons for such a limitation.
notable
The Düsseldorf LD held that amendments to an already-filed application to amend the patent fall outside R. 263 RoP and must be assessed under R. 30.2 RoP, which requires the Court's leave. The panel treated FUJIFILM's attempt to remove the territorial limitation (to the German designation) as a subsequent request for amendment and admitted it. Reading Art. 34 UPCA together with R. 30 RoP, the Court reasoned that territorial limitation of a patent amendment request needs objective reasons, because amendments set the factual basis for the single revocation decision. The defendants' alternative request for an extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP was refused, as the exception is to be used with caution and no exceptional circumstances were shown.
Stichwörter
R. 263 RoP, amendment of the application, R. 30.2 RoP, Application to amend the patent