2024-05-21 - CD Paris - Hanshow v. SES-imagotag - UPC_CFI_360/2023

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division refused to disregard submissions on an application to amend the patent that had been filed in the revocation workflow instead of in the separate CMS workflow opened for the amendment. Rule 9.2 RoP gives the Court a discretion to disregard material not submitted within a time limit, and Rule 4.1 RoP requires electronic filing on the official forms, but neither justified excluding submissions made in direct reply to a pleading that the patentee had itself filed in that same workflow under the composite title of a defence to revocation and an application to amend. Decisive were that the material had properly come to the Court's knowledge, that the patentee had in fact been able to answer it in its rejoinder, and that the Rules of Procedure must be applied on the principles of proportionality and fairness under Articles 41 and 42 UPCA with proceedings organised flexibly under Article 52(1) UPCA. The observations were therefore deemed admissible and validly filed in the amendment procedure, and by the same logic the patentee's own observations on the auxiliary requests were carried across into it.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_360/2023