UPC_CFI_642/2025; UPC_CFI_472/2026 – Laitram v ScanBelt

Expert Commentary

Date oral argument Facts 1. The Court proposed several dates for oral argument and asked the parties to react to these suggestions before a certain date. 2. The defendant did not react before said date. 3. The Court subsequently set the date for oral argument on 8 December 2026, which was confirmed by the defendant as its preferred date. 4. About a month later, the defendant asked for postponement because the managing director of their client could not attend on 8 December 2026. The Court 1. A party should react within the deadline. 2. After a date has been set, that date can only be changed for compelling reasons that make it unreasonable to require a party to appear. 3. No such compelling reasons were given. 4. The request is dismissed. Comment 1. Logical decision of the Court. 2. The representatives of the defendant seem to be disorganized. First, they did not react in time; then, they accepted the date of 8 December; finally, a month later, they asked for a change of date (a request that they even repeated after a first rejection). The client is now likely unhappy because its managing director cannot be present.

Full Decision Text

Local Division Munich UPC CFI 642/2025 UPC CFI 472/2026 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 2 April 2026 HEADNOTES: 1. If the Court invites the parties to comment on various proposed dates for the interim conference or the oral hearing, UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly, and no later than the expiration of the deadline set for them. 2. Once a date has been set, subsequent requests for a postponement will be rejected, unless there are substantial grounds which, evident to the Court, make it unreasonable for a party to attend, thereby justifying a postponement in the specific case. The compelling reasons for a postponement must be set out in the application for postponement so that they may be taken into account in the Court’s discretionary decision. 3. This also applies if the late request refers to one of the other dates originally proposed by the Court. Once a date has been agreed upon with the parties, potential alternative dates are generally no longer reserved for a specific proceeding. UPC CFI 642/2025 UPC CFI 472/2026 2 CLAIMANT: Laitram L.L.C. 200 Laitram Lane, 70123, Harahan, LA, US represented by: Michael Rüberg, Dr. Carl-Richard Haarman, Victor V. Fetscher, Eva Liesegang (Böhmert & Böhmert) DEFENDANT: 1) ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems Læsøvej 12, 9800, Hjørring, DK represented by: Margret Knitter (SKW Schwarz) supported by: David Molina, Myriam Lutz, Jakob Daniel (Molina Ho) PATENT AT ISSUE: EP 3 251 983 LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: German PANEL: Panel 1b of the Local Division Munich DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by the fully constituted panel of judges. SUBJECT-MATTER: Second application to postpone a date set for the oral hearing SUMMARY OF FACTS AND REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES 1. For the purpose of scheduling a date for the oral hearing, the Court, by notice dated 13 February 2026, gave the parties the opportunity to comment on three proposed dates and suggested a bilateral coordination. The claimant submitted a statement within the deadline. The defendant did not submit a statement within the deadline. 2. Subsequently, by order dated 20 February 2026, the Court scheduled an in-person oral hearing for 8 December 2026 and summoned the parties to attend. By a written pleading received in the case management system on 23 February 2026 and signed on UPC CFI 642/2025 UPC CFI 472/2026 3 19 February 2026, the defendant confirmed that its preferred date for the oral hearing was 8 December 2026. With the agreement of the parties, the Court then, on 25 February 2026, issued a decision pursuant to Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure and additionally ordered that the Counterclaim for revocation (UPC CFI 472/2026) would also be decided on 8 December 2026. 3. On 3 March 2026, the defendant filed an application to postpone the hearing date, stating as justification that the managing director of the defendant would be unable to attend on 8 December 2026. On 10 December 2026, the patent attorneys acting for the defendant would be unable to attend, and 22 December 2026, the third originally proposed date, would likewise not be available. 4. In its statement of 4 March 2026, the claimant opposed this application for postponement. 5. By order dated 6 March 2026, the Munich Local Division rejected the defendant’s application of 3 March 2026 to postpone the hearing. In its reasoning, the Division stated that the defendant’s submission that its managing director would be unable to attend on the date of the hearing did not, in substance, justify a postponement. No explanation had been provided for the alleged unavailability of the defendant’s managing director; nor had any such reason been substantiated. 6. Following the scheduling of a date for the interim conference, the defendant again applied on 17 March 2026 for the postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 8 December 2026. In support of its application, it added that the defendant’s managing director would be unable to attend on 8 December 2026 due to an internal company event at which his presence in that capacity was mandatory. However, a hearing on 10 December 2026 would now be possible for the patent attorneys acting for the defendant. 7. The defendant requests to postpone the oral hearings set for 8 December 2026. 8. The claimant no longer opposes the request 9. and, according to its statement of 20 March 2026, has in the meantime rescheduled its own arrangements accordingly. GROUNDS: 10. In its second application for postponement of 17 March 2026, the defendant once again failed to present any reasons which, in light of the panel’s schedule, could justify setting a date for the oral hearing other than the one determined, once the parties had been given an opportunity to be heard. UPC CFI 642/2025 UPC CFI 472/2026 4 11. If the Court invites the parties to comment on various proposed dates for the interim conference or the oral hearing, UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly, and no later than the expiration of the deadline set for them. This did not occur in the present case. 12. Once a hearing date has been set, subsequent requests for a postponement will be rejected, unless there are substantial grounds which, evident to the Court, make it unreasonable for a party to attend, thereby justifying a postponement in the specific case. The compelling reasons for a postponement must be set out in the application for postponement so that they may be taken into account in the Court’s discretionary decision. 13. Within the scope of this discretionary decision, the Court must uphold the fundamental procedural principle of guaranteeing the right to be heard as an expression of a fair and equitable procedure. It is reflected, among other things, in Articles 42 and 52(1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in paragraph 2 of the Preamble to the Rules of Procedure, and in Rules 264 and 112 to 115 of the Rules of Procedure. A fair and equitable procedure entails that the parties are able to present their views on the points that are relevant to the decision. 14. At the same time, the Court must uphold the principles of expediency and procedural concentration. The Rules of Procedure require the parties to present all their submissions, facts, and evidence as early as possible. The Court is obliged to expedite the proceedings. Rules 9.3(b) and 343.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure empower the Court to shorten time limits. Pursuant to Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may disregard any argument which a party has not submitted in accordance with a time limit set by the Court. 15. Against this background, substantial grounds for a postponement constitute exceptional circumstances of such weight that, in the necessary exercise of the Court’s discretion, they override the principles of expediency and procedural concentration. This may be the case where the right to be heard cannot otherwise be ensured. 16. The defendant did not assert such exceptional circumstances in its second application for postponement. Its merely repeated submission that its managing director is unable to attend on the date of the hearing does not, in substance, justify a postponement. 17. First, the defendant did not, within 15 days of the issuance of the order of 6 March 2026 refusing the application for postponement, file an application for leave to appeal against that order. 18. Secondly, it did not base its renewed application of 17 March 2026 on any subsequently changed factual circumstances. Rather, it merely supplemented its previous grounds for a postponement with the unspecified information that its managing director would be unavailable on 8 December 2026 due to an internal company event. No evidence in support of these assertions was offered. UPC CFI 642/2025 UPC CFI 472/2026 5 19. Sufficient grounds that would render the defendant’s managing director’s personal appearance before the Court on 8 December 2026 unreasonable or even impossible have therefore not been made known to the Local Division. 20. As already stated in the order of 6 March 2026, the managing director may, in any event, be represented at the oral hearing by a duly informed representative. 21. No different conclusion arises from the fact that the defendant’s late scheduling request now, for the first time, refers to one of the other dates originally proposed by the Court. Once a date has been agreed upon with the parties, potential alternative dates are generally no longer reserved for a specific proceeding. 22. As regards the date of 10 December 2026, most recently discussed by the parties as an alternative, not all members of the internationally constituted panel are available for this case. In the meantime, the panel has been expanded to include a technically qualified judge, and an additional hearing has been scheduled for that week. 23. Leave to appeal is not granted, as this is a decision based on the particular circumstances of the specific case. ORDER I. The defendant’s application of 17 March 2026 for the postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 8 December 2026 is dismissed. II. Leave to appeal is not granted. ORDER FOR THE SUB-REGISTRY The order requires translation for publication on the Court’s website. Issued on 2 April 2026 Dr. Zigann Presiding judge Mlakar Legally qualified judge UPC CFI 642/2025 UPC CFI 472/2026 6 Parrini Technically qualified judge Dr. Schnurr Legally qualified judge and Judge- rapporteur

Key Holdings

• Parties must react to court proposals within set deadlines.
• Once an oral argument date is set, it can only be changed for compelling reasons.
• Disorganization or a client's managing director's unavailability are not considered compelling reasons for postponement.
• Requests for postponement based on non-compelling reasons will be dismissed.

Tags

• Procedural
• Oral Argument
• Postponement
• Time Limits
• Case Management

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_743/2025 – Skechers v Fast IP
• UPC_CFI_804/2025 – TP Link (USA) v Huawei (China)
• UPC_CFI_119/2025; UPC_CFI_401/2025 – Shanghai v Longi
• UPC CFI 425/2024, UPC CFI 751/2024 – JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
• UPC_CFI_771/2025; UPC_CFI_802/2025 – Solvay v Zhejiang