UPC_CFI_459/2024 and UPC_CFI_657/2024 – Valeo v Magna
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Partially Granted
- Sector
- Mechanics
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Extension of time limits Decision by the Judge-Rapporteur 1. The defendants have not objected against harmonisation of the time limits for filing the Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. Such harmonisation is in the interest of all parties and the Court in the efficient conduct of proceeding. 2. The defendants object against a further extension, and correctly point out that the claimant does not mention exceptional circumstances which would justify such extension. Comment 1. R. 29 RoP in fact intends that the Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation are lodged on the same day. If, for whatever reason, the two months period for these two submissions would end on different days, harmonisation of the days for lodging makes sense. 2. Representatives should realise that before the UPC, holidays, workload etc. are no reasons for extension. In this case, the defendant objected but even if the defendant would have agreed the Court should have refused the request. The credibility of the UPC stands or falls with (in normal cases) an oral hearing within a year and a decision 6 weeks later.
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_459/2024 UPC_CFI_657/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 12 December 2024 concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 CLAIMANT: Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, with the same address, Represented by: Attorney-at-law Felix Rödiger, Attorney-at-law Jo- nas Smeets, Attorney-at-law Fabian Saupe, Bird & Bird LLP, Carl-Theodor-Straße 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, Electronic address for service: felix.roediger@twobirds.com Contributing European patent attorneys: Nicolas Cardon, Amandine Ricard, Florian Saadi, Valeo Electrification, Cergy DEFENDANTS: 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Herrmann-Hagenmeyer-Str. 1, 74199 Untergruppenbach, Ger- many, represented by its general partner, Magna PT Management B.V., with the same ad- dress, which is jointly represented by the managing directors Thomas Klett and Sandro Gildo Morandini, with the same address, 2. Magna PT s.r.o., Perinska cesta 282, Kechnec 044 58, Slovakia, represented by its managing directors Martin Hluchý und Katarína Vaškovičová, with the same address, 3. Magna International France, SARL, 4 route de Gisy Bâtiment 26, Biévres 91570, France, rep- resented by its managing directors Thierry Servouse and Franz Trummer, with the same ad- dress, All Defendants represented by: Attorney-at-law Klaus Haft, Attorney-at-law Sabine Agé, Attorney-at-law Sebastian Kratzer, Hoyng, ROKH, Monegier, Steinstraße 20, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, 2 Collaboratoring attorney: Attorney-at-law Dr Wolfgang Kellenter, Hengeler Müller, Benrather Straße 18-20, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany, Collaboratoring European Patent attorney: European Patent Attorney Jan Ackermann, Euro- pean Patent Attorney Felipe von Heereman, Euro- pean Patent Attorney Dr Margarete Rittstieg, Co- hausz & Florack, Bleichstraße 14, 40211 Düsseldorf, Germany PATENT IN SUIT: EUROPEAN PATENT NO. EP 3 320 602 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division DECIDING JUDGES: This Order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT: R. 9.3 RoP – Request for the extension of time limits GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER: The Defendants have not objected to the harmonisation of the time limits for filing the Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. Such harmonisation of the time limits is in the interest of all parties and of the Court in the efficient conduct of the proceedings. As the Defendants have objected to a further extension the Court sees no reason for a further extension of the time limits. The Defendants have correctly pointed out that the statutory time limits already take into account all relevant circumstances of a typical case, such as workload, possible holidays and holiday planning. The Claimant has not put forward any exceptional circumstances that would exceptionally justify an extension of the time limits in this case. To the extent that the Claimant refers to problems with the display of files in the CMS, it has, according to its own submissions, been aware of the Statement of Defence since 12 November 2024. Service of the Counterclaim for Revocation was accepted on 14 November 2024. This means that, in accordance with the present Order, the Claimant now has two months, as required by law, to prepare the Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. In this respect, it should be noted that the Claimant was already aware of large parts of the Defendants’ submissions from the previous proceedings for provisional measures. Insofar as the Claimant refers to Defendants’ R. 262A-RoP application, an extension of the time limits can only be considered if the facts in question, which are subject to the confidentiality order, 3 were not already known to the Claimant from the previous proceedings. This has not been explained in detail in this request for extension. ORDER: The time period for lodging the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation together with the Reply to the Statement of Defence is set on 14 January 2025. The request for a further extension of the time limits is rejected. DETAILS OF THE ORDER: App_64571/2024 under main file reference ACT_44727/2024 and CC_59743/2024 UPC number: UPC_CFI_459/2024 and UPC_CFI_657/2024 Type of procedure: Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation Issued in Düsseldorf on 12 December 2024 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas
Key Holdings
- The Judge-Rapporteur allowed the harmonisation of time limits for filing the Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, as it serves efficiency and was not objected to.
- A request for a further extension of time limits was denied because the claimant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
- The decision reinforces the UPC's strict approach to procedural timelines, emphasizing that reasons like holidays or workload are generally insufficient for extensions.
- The commentator stresses the importance of adhering to the UPC's expedited schedule for maintaining its credibility.
Tags
- Case Management
- Counterclaim
- Pleadings
- Procedural Issues
- Time Limits