UPC_CFI_665/2024 – Adeia Guides Inc v The Walt Disney Company
- Court
- Local Division Munich
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Extension of deadlines Facts Three defendants were served on different dates which would mean that the Statement of Answer would be due on three different dates. Parties agree on one deadline which is a week after the earliest deadline but before the latest deadline. Court Decision The Judge Rapporteur (JR) grants an extension of the first deadline to the agreed deadline. Comment Streamlining deadlines is efficient, and a delay of one week is acceptable. However, in principle, given the UPC’s objective to resolve cases within 12-14 months, it would be preferable to streamline deadlines to the earliest possible date by shortening later ones. If all defendants belong to the same corporate group, this should not pose a problem, as the group would still receive the full three months. The argument of a “substantial workload and travel commitments to the US and Asia,” cited by representatives of the defendant, is, in my opinion, not a valid reason for an extension under the UPC framework.
Full Decision Text
Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_665/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich delivered on 30 January 2025 CLAIMANT Adeia Guides Inc. 3025 Orchard Parkway - CA 95134 - San Jose – US Represented by: Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg) Supported by: Dr. Georg Anetsberger (Bardehle Pagenberg) DEFENDANTS 1) The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Asterweg 15S - 1031HL - Amsterdam – NL 2) Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. 500 South Buena Vista St, - 91521 - Burbank, California – US 3) The Walt Disney Company Limited 3 Queen Caroline Street - W6 9PE - Hammersmith, London - GB Represented by: Dr. Dietrich Kamlah, Dr. Christian Lederer, Dr. Michael Schächinger, Teresa Gaboardi (Taylor Wessing) Supported by: Dr. Joel Nägerl, Dr. Lorenz Walder-Hartmann (Zimmermann & Partner) PATENT AT ISSUE European Patent No. 2 793 430 DECIDING JUDGE The order was made by Presiding Judge Dr Matthias Zigann, acting as Judge-Rapporteur. UPC_CFI_665/2024 2 2 LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Patent infringement; Application for deadline extension STATEMENT OF THE FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES Disney requests on 28 January 2025: to set Tuesday, 11 March 2025, as deadline for the filing of the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation for all Defendants and extend the deadlines for Defendants 1 and 2 accordingly. Disney argues: The parties have reached an agreement that the deadline for all Defendants for the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation shall be on 11 March 2025. In return, the Defendants declare that they accept the outstanding service of the Statement of Claim of Defendant 3 in the Date 28 January 2025 present proceedings and the service of a further action before the Munich Regional Court. This was already done. The extension of the deadline is also required due to the substantial workload resulting from parallel proceedings and two one-week business trips of the lead legal counsels of the Defendants to Asia and the United States of America in the coming six weeks, which cannot be postponed. GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER Defendants 1) and 2) were served on 2 and 9 December 2024 respectively. An extension of the deadline for filing a statement of defence to 11 March 2025 is only a maximum of one week. At the same time, the deadline for defendant 3) will be shortened. In view of the agreement reached between the parties, the request must be granted. ORDER The request is granted. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REGISTRY The date of service on the defendant 3) in ACT_59975/2024 UPC_CFI_665/2024 is to be set at the 28th of January 2025. UPC_CFI_665/2024 3 3 ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_5020/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_59975/2024 UPC number: UPC_CFI_665/2024 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 4703/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application Dr. Zigann Presiding Judge
Key Holdings
- The Judge Rapporteur granted an extension to streamline multiple deadlines for defendants to a single, agreed-upon date.
- The extension was for one week, which was deemed acceptable for efficiency.
- The comment suggests that streamlining deadlines to the earliest possible date is generally preferable and that 'substantial workload and travel commitments' are not valid reasons for extensions under the UPC framework.
Tags
- Added Matter
- Case Management
- Efficiency
- Time Limits