UPC_CFI_259/2025; UPC_CFI_758/2024 – Hologic v Siemens
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Further exchange of written pleadings Facts 1. The claimant requested a further exchange of pleadings based on R. 36 RoP. They wanted to be able to respond to the defendants’ reaction to the amended patent claims. The claimant argued that they identified a couple of statements which should be disregarded because the defendant was only allowed to react to the amended claims. 2. The claimant stated that they were not aware of the defendants’ submissions dated 24 September 2025, before 3 March 2026. The JR Refuses the request. The claimant can react during the oral argument. Comment 1. For readers of this decision, who do not know the file, it is rather unclear what happened. It cannot be that the claimant did not receive the defence to the application to amend the patent, which had to have been lodged within two months of the application to amend the patent, in casu on 24 September 2025. 2. I assume that it must have been received by the claimant on 24 September 2025 (and if not, the claimant should have inquired at the Registry). Afterwards, the claimant has a month to reply and the defendant has the possibility to file a rejoinder within one month. 3. It looks like the claimant realized (after filing their reply) that the defendant had also raised new invalidity arguments against the original claims in their defence to the amended claims (which is not allowed), and wanted to correct that mistake. Or perhaps the defendant put forward arguments in their rejoinder that go beyond responding to the reply. 4. If a JR issues an order (also when sitting in a busy Division), they should realize that it should also be comprehensible for a reader who is not involved in the case. 5. This order, which lacks any further actual content (when does the oral argument take place? When and which submissions have been filed?), falls short of that requirement. 6. However, the general lesson is that R. 36 RoP is an exception: only under very special circumstances will further pleadings be allowed.
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC CFI 758/2024 UPC CFI 259/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 March 2026 concerning EP 2 352 431 B1 CLAIMANT/COUNTERDEFENDANT: Hologic, Inc., 250 Campus Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752, United States of America, represented by its President & CEO Stephen MacMillan represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Thure Schubert, Attorney-at-law Chris- tian Leopold Zapp, Patent Attorney Arnold Asmussen, Attor- ney-at law Dr Christoph Eisenmann, Vossius & Partner Pa- tentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Siebertstraße 3, 81675 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: vb-hologic-siemens@vossiusbrinkhof.eu DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMANTS: 1. Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemensstr. 3, 91301 Forchheim, Germany 2. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Henkestr. 127, 91052 Erlangen, Germany 3. Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Prinses Beatrixlaan 800, 2595 BN Den Haag, The Netherlands 4. Siemens Healthcare SAS, 6 rue du Général Audran, 92400 Courbevoie, France Defendants 1-4 represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Matthias Meyer, Attorney-at-law Dr Dan- iel Misch, Patent Attorney Dr Felix Harbsmeier, Patent Attor- ney Cameron Walker, Bird & Bird LLP, Carl-Theodor-Straße 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany electronic address for service: Matthias.meyer@twobirds.com 2 PATENT AT ISSUE: European Patent n° EP 2 352 431 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel 2 of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGE: This order was issued by legally qualified Judge Dr Rinken acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 36 RoP – Further exchange of written pleadings GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: 1. To inform the parties, it is noted that Panel 2 took over the case on 1 March 2026. Judge Dr Rinken is now designated as judge-rapporteur. 2. In order to give the Claimant the opportunity to present further arguments if necessary, R. 36 RoP provides for the possibility of requesting permission to file additional pleadings. a) In assessing the prospects of success of such request, the Court must, on the one hand, take into account of the reasons put forward by the Claimant as to why, in its view, further pleadings are necessary. However, the Court must also take into account the impact of further pleadings on the further course of the proceedings and the associated risk of delay. b) In the light of those principles, the Claimant’s request does not justify allowing it to lodge a further pleading. At this point in time, it may be provisionally assumed in favor of the Claimant that it had never received and was not aware of Defendants` submissions dated September 24, 2025 before March 3, 2026. Furthermore, for the purposes of this decision, it can remain open whether the Defendants acted in accordance with procedural rules regarding the submis- sion of the pleadings dated September 24, 2025. Even if the Claimant had received the aforementioned submissions already on September 24, 2025, its request would still have had to be rejected. The reasons named by the Claim- ant are insufficient: The Claimant merely states that it identified a couple of statements in Defendants` submissions which would need to be disregarded considering that the Defend- ants` statements were only permitted to deal with amended claims but not to present new facts or to argue in general on infringement of the main claims of the patent. As the Claim- ant has not specified any new facts, the request remains vague. The Claimant’s right to be heard is not unduly restricted by the rejection of its request. Firstly, the Claimant retains the right to oppose Defendants´ submissions dated 24, Sep- tember 2025. Secondly, even if any alleged new facts or arguments set out in the Rejoinder to the Reply to the defence to the application to amend the patent in suit are accepted, the Claimant will be given ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing. 3 ORDER: The request to allow the Claimant to submit brief formal comments (approx. 5 pages) by March 13, 2026 on Defendants` submissions dated September 24, 2025 and filed March 3, 2026 is rejected. Issued in Düsseldorf on 9 March 2026 Judge Dr Rinken 4
Key Holdings
- Court orders should be comprehensible to readers not involved in the case, providing sufficient context.
- Parties are expected to react to submissions during oral arguments if further written pleadings are denied.
- Rule 36 RoP for further exchange of pleadings is an exception, allowed only under very special circumstances.
Tags
- Case Management
- Pleadings
- Procedure
- Rules of Procedure