UPC_CFI_181/2025 – Qiagen v bioMérieux
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Time periods Facts The defendants lodged the Statement of Defence/Counterclaim for Revocation on 10 June 2025 and asked for confidentiality. On 16 June 2025, the JR provisionally gave access to three representatives of the claimant. On 15 July 2025, she gave a definite order granting access to the teams of the representatives and certain specific persons of the claimant. The claimant now asks for an extension for its reply/defence to the revocation action until 15 September 2025. The defendants consented. The JR Grants the request. Comment This is now pretty standard: time periods for submissions start to run after the representatives (and the persons of the party who are given access) have received the unredacted version of the submission to which they have to react. When the Rules are revised, this should probably be put into the Rules.
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_181/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 23 July 2025 concerning EP 2 726 883 CLAIMANT: QIAGEN Sciences, LLC, represented by its President and Chief Executive Officer Thierry Bernard, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice President, Head of Global Operation Antonio Santos, and its Secretary Tim Grabham, 19300 Germantown Rd, Germantown, MD 20874, USA represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Clemens Plassmann, Attorney-at-law Dr Markus Kuczera, Attorney-at-law Chia C. Chuong and all lawyers of Hogan Lovells International LLP who are authorised to act as representatives before the UPC, Dreischeibenhaus 1, 40211 Düsseldorf, Germany with support by: Patent Attorney Carla Roth, Dipl.-Biologin (graduate biologist), Patent Attorney Dr rer. nat. Lars Hemsath, Dipl.-Biochemiker (graduate biochemist), Hoffmann Eitle Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Mönchenwerther Straße 11, 40545 Düsseldorf, Germany electronic address for service: upc-hub@hoganlovells.com DEFENDANTS: 1. bioMérieux S.A., represented by its Executive Chairman Alexandre Mérieux and Chief Executive Officer Pierre Boulud, 376, chemin de l’orme, F-69280 Marcy-l’Etoile, France 2. bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, represented by its director Alexandre Schneider, Weber- straße 8, 72622 Nürtingen, Germany represented by: Attorney-at-law Oliver Jan Jüngst, LL.M, Attorney-at-law Dr Annika L. Lückemann, LL.M., Attorney-at-law Selina Schnei- der, Bird & Bird LLP, Carl-Theodor-Straße 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany electronic address for service: oliver.jan.juengst@twobirds.com 2 PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° EP 2 726 883 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This Order was issued by Judge Dr Schumacher acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 9.3 RoP – Extension of a time period SUMMARY OF FACTS: 1. In an infringement action before the Court, the Defendants lodged their Statement of defence and a Counterclaim for revocation on 10 June 2025. On the same date, they filed an application for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP with regard to information contained in the Statement of defence and in certain exhibits. The information relates to the peptides used by the Defendants, as well as to analyses and results, and to supplier documents and technical specifications. 2. On 16 June 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued a preliminary order. Access to the unredacted versions of the Statement of defence and the exhibits was restricted to three of the Claimant’s representatives. 3. The final order regarding the confidentiality request was issued on 15 July 2025. Access was granted to the Claimant’s legal representatives (including attorneys and patent attorneys) and their respective teams, as well as to the named natural persons of the Claimant and to an external expert. REQUESTS: 4. The Claimant requests to extend the time period for lodging the Reply to the Statement of defence (R. 29 (a) RoP) as well as the time period for lodging the Defence to the Counterclaim (R. 29 (a) RoP) until 15 September 2025 (R. 9.3 (a) RoP). 5. In the alternative, the Claimant requests a declaration that the time period for lodging the Reply to the Statement of defence (R. 29 (a) RoP) as well as the time period for lodging the Defence to the Counterclaim (R. 29 (a) RoP) started on 15 July 2025. 6. The Defendants’ representative has given consent to the requested extension. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: 7. Pursuant to R. 29 (a) RoP, within two months of service of a Statement of defence which 3 includes a Counterclaim for revocation, the claimant shall lodge a Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation together with any Reply to the Statement of defence and any Application to amend the patent pursuant to R. 30, if applicable. This means that the time period will run from the date of service, even if an application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP) has been made in respect of that Statement of defence, on which an order will be issued at a later date (UPC_CFI_355/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 4 April 2024 – FUJIFILM v. Kodak; UPC_CFI_456/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 24 June 2024 – Dolby v. ASUS; different opinion: UPC_CFI_54/2023 (LD Hamburg), Order of 28 November 2023 – Avago v. Tesla). 8. As access to the unredacted versions of the Statement of defence and the exhibits was delayed, the requested extension must be granted. The Claimant must be given a two-month period for the Reply to the Statement of defence, starting from the date on which the patent attorneys, the relevant claimant personnel and the external expert were also granted access to the unredacted versions (see UPC_CFI_355/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 4 April 2024 – FUJIFILM v. Kodak; UPC_CFI_716/2024 (LD Mannheim), Order of 8 May 2025 – Polidoro v. Bekaert). This is particularly true in this case, given that the redacted sections form an integral part of the Defendants' non-infringement arguments. 9. The same applies to the Counterclaim for revocation. A party must be able to reconcile its arguments on (non)-infringement with those on validity and possible amendments of the claims, in particular on its first submission on validity (see UPC_CFI_355/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 4 April 2024 – FUJIFILM v. Kodak). 10. There is no indication that the Claimant’s request for an extension will unduly delay the proceedings. ORDER: The time periods for the Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of defence and for the Defence to the Counterclaim are extended to 15 September 2025. DETAILS OF THE ORDER: App_33456/2025 related to the main proceedings ACT_9962/2025, CC_26510/2025 and CC_27456/2025 UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_181/2024, UPC_CFI_497/2025 and UPC_CFI_ 516/2025 Subject of the Proceedings: Patent infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation Issued in Düsseldorf on 23 July 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Judge Dr Schumacher
Key Holdings
- Extension of time granted for reply/defence.
- Period starts from receipt of unredacted submission by authorized persons.
Tags
- Added Matter
- Case Management
- Confidentiality
- Time Limits