UPC_CFI_2022/2025 – Asus v Guangdong

Expert Commentary

Filing late Facts 1. Oppo files its pleading containing its Rejoinder in the infringement case and its Reply and defence to the application to amend only in the workflow of the infringement case but not in the workflow of the revocation case. 2. Oppo filed a R. 9 RoP request asking for confirmation that it had also filed in a timely manner in the revocation case, or alternatively requesting an extension of the period for filing due to an “administrative oversight”. 3. Asus leaves the matter to the Court. The JR Considers the pleadings also filed in the revocation action. Comment 1. The decision is even more understandable given that the pleadings stated that it was both for the infringement and the revocation case. 2. Apparently, uploading all of the exhibits, some of which were confidential, was quite a task. Is there no technology that would allow you to upload in the infringement case and automatically upload in the revocation case as well?

Full Decision Text

Local Division Munich UPC CFI 2022/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 26 June 2026 APPLICANTS (CLAIMANTS IN THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION): 1. Guangdong OPPO Mobile TelecommunicaƟons Corp. Ltd, No. 18 Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang'an Town, Guangdong Province, Dongguan, 523860, China 2. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, 18/F, Tower C, Tai Ran Building, No.8 Tai Ran Road, Shenzhen, 518040, China 3. Realme Chongqing Mobile TelecommunicaƟons Corp., Ltd, No.178 Yulong Avenue, Yufengshan, Yubei District, Chongqing, 401120, China 4. OROPE Germany GmbH, Graf-Adolf-Platz 15, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany 5. OTECH Germany GmbH, Graf-Adolf-Platz 15, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany 6. Oleading B.V., Weena 505, 3013AL RoƩerdam, The Netherlands 7. ReflecƟon Investment B.V., Hofplein 20, 3032AC RoƩerdam, The Netherlands 8. OTech Italia s.r.l., Viale Dell'Innovazione 1, Milano (MI) CAP 20126, Italy 9. Realme Germany GmbH, WiesenhüƩenstraße 11, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (hereinaŌer all together as OPPO) represented by: Dr. Gisbert Hohagen, Taylor Wessing and all UPC RepresentaƟves of Taylor Wessing PartnerschaŌsgesellschaŌ mbB and all UPC RepresentaƟves of Taylor Wessing N.V. RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION): ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., 2F., No. 11, Sec. 2, Beitou Rd, Beitou Dist, 112028 Taipei City, Taiwan (hereinaŌer ASUS) represented by: All UPC RepresentaƟves of EIP Europe LLP including, in parƟcular, Dr. Christof Höhne, Isabelle Schaller, Dr. SebasƟan Fuchs, Dimitri Kosenko, Maximilian Häger, Jerome Spaargaren, James Seymour, Neil Condon, Darren Smyth and Joanne Welch and further represented by: Dr. Marina Wehler, Dr. Arno Riße, Dr. Lisa Rieth, Victoria Thüsing, AƩorneys-at-Law, ARNOLD RUESS Rechtsanwälte PartmbB UPC CFI 2022/2025 2 PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° EP 3 346 616 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English PANEL: Panel 1a of the Local Division Munich DECIDING JUDGE: This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur Petri Rinkinen POINTS AT ISSUE: ApplicaƟon based on R. 9 RoP SUMMARY OF FACTS AS WELL AS REQUESTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 1. OPPO has submiƩed on 3 June 2026 “REJOINDER TO THE REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE (TECHNICAL), REPLY TO THE DEFENCE TO THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION AND DEFENCE TO THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE PATENT” to case UPC CFI 525/2025, i.e. to the workflow of the infringement acƟon to which the counterclaim for revocaƟon UPC CFI 2022/2025 has been submiƩed. In that submission it is indicated that it relates to both of the cases UPC CFI 525/2025 and UPC CFI 2022/2025. No submission was filed on case UPC CFI 2022/2025. 2. The Court sent the following communicaƟon to OPPO on 12 June 2026: “OPPO has filed on 3 June 2026 on case UPC CFI 525/2026 a submission Ɵtled “REJOINDER TO THE REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE (TECHNICAL), REPLY TO THE DEFENCE TO THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR REVOCATION AND DEFENCE TO THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE PATENT”. The submission has not been filed to case UPC CFI 2022/2026 even though based on the content of that submission it is meant also for the laƩer case. Without taking any stand to the quesƟon whether this submission is filed in Ɵme to the case UPC CFI 2022/2026, the Court encourages to submit to the case UPC CFI 2022/2026 all the material meant to be taken into account in that.” 3. OPPO filed on 13 June 2026 the submission and its exhibits to the case UPC CFI 2022/2025. 4. OPPO filed on 15 June 2026 the applicaƟon pursuant to R. 9 RoP requesƟng that the Court: I. Confirms that the Ɵme limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocaƟon has been duly complied with, in view of the Reply having been filed in due Ɵme in the workflow for the infringement proceedings (Case No. UPC CFI 525/2025). UPC CFI 2022/2025 3 II. In the alternaƟve: retroacƟvely extends the Ɵme limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocaƟon in the revocaƟon proceedings (Case No. UPC CFI 2022/2025) unƟl 13.06.2026. 5. OPPO’s arguments in the applicaƟon for filing in due Ɵme can be summarized as follows: - The submission was unified including both the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of Defence concerning the infringement proceedings (UPC CFI 525/2025) and the Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for RevocaƟon and Defence to the ApplicaƟon to Amend the Patent concerning the revocaƟon proceedings (UPC CFI 2022/2025). - This submission was filed in due Ɵme to the workflow of the infringement proceedings and hence the Court and ASUS had access to it in due Ɵme. - The failure to simultaneously upload the idenƟcal document in the parallel workflow for the revocaƟon proceedings (UPC CFI 2022/2025) was an inadvertent administraƟve oversight, caused by the excepƟonal complexity and volume of the filings in the present case – which included mulƟple confidenƟal and non-confidenƟal versions relaƟng to the anƟtrust compulsory licensing defense in the infringement proceedings. 6. The Court requested comments from ASUS and their response on 22 June 2026 was: “With reference to the Court’s communicaƟon dated 15 June 2026 ASUS does not wish to submit comments on OPPO’s applicaƟon and leaves the maƩer to the discreƟon of the Court.” GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER 7. The Court notes that based on R. 4.1 RoP it is the responsibility of the parƟes to file submissions in due Ɵme and to the correct workflows in the Court’s Case Management System (CMS). It is not the duty of the Court to accept late filed submissions and each case must be evaluated based on its own specific facts. AccepƟng excepƟons to this main rule requires that none of the rights of the other parƟes of the acƟon are violated. 8. At the same Ɵme the Court understands that the technical features of the Court’s IT- systems should not be used to deny access to jusƟce. There are several Court of First Instance decisions where the Court has accepted submissions when they have been technically filed incorrectly to wrong workflows as long as the content of these submissions has been provided to the Court and the other parƟes in due Ɵme. This is exactly what has taken place in this case. 9. The submission lodged in workflow UPC CFI 525/2025 was available to the Court and to ASUS just the same way it would have been available if it would have been lodged also to the counterclaim for revocaƟon workflow UPC CFI 2022/2025. Lodging to that workflow is just lodging a duplicate due to the IT-system used by the Court. 10. In such situaƟon the Court accepts that as the informaƟon provided in the submission was filed in due Ɵme, all the informaƟon provided in relaƟon to the counterclaim for UPC CFI 2022/2025 4 revocaƟon was available to the representaƟves of the other party and to the Court in due Ɵme. As the only error was that the duplicate was not filed to the other workflow, it would be unreasonable not to accept the submission to cover also the workflow UPC CFI 2022/2025. None of rights of the other party are violated if the submission is accepted to be lodged in due Ɵme. The answer by ASUS also reflects this. The late lodging to the workflow of the counterclaim for revocaƟon can be considered only a technical correcƟon of the lodging of the submission already on 3 June 2026. ORDER The Court confirms that the Ɵme limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocaƟon has been duly complied with. Issued on 26 June 2026 Petri Rinkinen Judge-rapporteur

Key Holdings

• Pleadings filed in one workflow (infringement) but intended for both (infringement and revocation) can be considered filed in both if the document explicitly states its dual purpose.
• An 'administrative oversight' can be a valid reason for a Rule 9 RoP request seeking confirmation of timely filing or an extension of time.
• The Court may exercise discretion to ensure procedural fairness, especially when the intent to file in both related actions is clear from the document itself.
• The case highlights potential complexities in the UPC's electronic filing system for interconnected infringement and revocation actions.

Tags

• Filing Deadlines
• Procedural Issues
• Pleadings
• Administrative Oversight