UPC_CFI_750/2024 – Fingon v Samsung
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Extension of time Background Defendants request extension of time for their rejoinder and their reply to the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation by three weeks. The JR Only special circumstances (not holidays, etc.) justify extensions of time. The JR considers this justified in this case because several of the software applications introduced by the claimant in their reply in the infringement proceedings come from a third party. In order to be able to answer, the defendant needs information from the third-party software developer and the opinion of the private expert who has to perform reverse-engineering. Comment It is good that the JR makes it clear that extensions are only granted in exceptional circumstances, and it seems credible that there are exceptional circumstances in this case. Moreover, the JR states that the extension will not affect the date for the hearing, so the case will, in all likelihood, be concluded within 14 months.
Full Decision Text
1 Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_750/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16 July 2025 concerning EP 2 839 403 concerning App_32611/2025 (request for the extension of time periods) CLAIMANT: Fingon LLC, 57 Pond Brook Road - CT 06470 - Newtown - US, represented by: Simon Reuter DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS: 1. Samsung Electronics GmbH, Frankfurter Straße 2 - 65760 - Eschborn – DE, represented by: Henrik Timmann 2. Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., 6 Rue Fructidor - 93400 - Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine – FR, represented by: Henrik Timmann PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent EP 2 839 403 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This order is issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English 2 SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – Request for the extension of time periods BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: Defendants request the extension of the time periods for their rejoinder in the infringement pro- ceedings and their reply to the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation by three weeks until 11 August 2025. The Claimant opposes the request. For further details, reference is made to the parties’ written pleadings. REASONS FOR THE ORDER: The extension is granted as requested. 1. When deciding whether to extend a time period, the interests of the parties involved and the interests of the court and the public in the efficient conduct of proceedings must be weighed against each other, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case. As the Claimant rightfully points out, the discretion given by R. 9.3 (a) RoP has to be construed narrowly and should be exercised with caution. An extension should be granted only under justified exceptional circumstances in order not to undermine the time period regime set out in the RoP which ensures that the court proceedings can be concluded swiftly and that there is sufficient time for the court to prepare the oral hearing. In principle, the time periods pro- vided by the RoP are sufficient. Work must be organised in such a way that time periods can be met even in the event of foreseeable obstacles such as holidays or the unavailability of a private expert of a party during certain periods due to a conference. However, special cir- cumstances may justify an extension of a time period. 2. Applying these principles to the case at hand, taking the circumstances of the individual case into account, the judge-rapporteur decides to grant the extension as requested. a) In contrast to their earlier auxiliary request within their prior application to disregard new submissions in Claimant’s reply in the infringement proceedings, Defendants have now put forward substantiated facts as to why they need more time to comment on the new tech- nical arguments after having analysed them in more detail. b) It is not disputed that several of the plurality of (software) application introduced in the reply in the infringement proceedings stem from a third party. The same is true for the security environment relied on in the reply. c) It is plausible that the Defendants, as they have substantiated, need information from the third party developer about said functionalities and the support of a private expert, and that they need time, after having received the information from the developer and the opinion of their private expert (who may take said information into account), to finalize their rejoin- der in the infringement proceedings. This is all the more true as aspects may arise during the drafting of the rejoinder that require further consultation and coordination with the devel- oper, the private expert or the internal experts. None of Claimant’s arguments casts signifi- cant doubt on the time required by the Defendants. This applies in particular to Claimant’s 3 assertion that its own private expert needed ‘a few weeks’ to reverse-engineer and decom- pile the ‘information’ (needed for his expert opinion submitted with Claimant’s reply). This does not allow the conclusion to be drawn that the Defendants or the developer are delaying the proceedings at hand. On the other hand, the extension of the time period does not jeop- ardise the preparation of the oral hearing. In view of all circumstances, when balancing the interests involved, an extension of the time period by three weeks appears justified and ap- propriate. In particular, the interests of the Claimant are not unduly affected, since it has indeed provided many further examples of allegedly patent-infringing applications in its re- ply, which, at least at the first glance at the current stage of the proceedings (where an in- depth analysis is not possible), give raise to plausible need for further analysis by Claimant. d) In contrast, all other circumstances invoked by Defendants (holidays, unavailability of the private expert for one week due to a conference) are not decisive. e) The extension must also be granted for the reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. According to established case law, in order to enable a party to reconcile its ar- guments on infringement with those on validity, on a regular basis, an extension of a time period in the infringement proceedings must also be granted accordingly for the time period for the corresponding written pleadings in the proceedings on the counterclaim for revoca- tion and (if applicable) the application to amend the patent, the regular time periods for which are aligned with the regular time periods in the infringement proceedings. In the ab- sence of circumstances that make such alignment unnecessary at the case at hand, the time period for the reply in the proceedings on the counterclaim for revocation is therefore also extended accordingly. ORDER: The time periods for filing the rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and the reply in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings are extended until 11 August 2025. ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_32720/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_63404/2024 UPC number: UPC_CFI_750/2024 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 32611/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application Issued in Mannheim on 16 July 2025 NAME AND SIGNATURE Böttcher Judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- Extension of time granted due to need for third-party software info/reverse engineering.
- Holidays are not a valid reason for extension.
- Hearing date unaffected.
Tags
- Added Matter
- Case Management
- Evidence