UPC_CFI_79/2025_July21 – Malikie v Discord
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Harmonization of time periods Facts Defendants submitted their counterclaim for revocation in their defence brief and uploaded a “reference brief” in the revocation workflow, which refers to the brief filed in the infringement action. The reference brief was served on 2 July 2025, and the defence with the counterclaim for revocation was served on 10 July 2025. The claimant now requests the same term for their answer to the counterclaim for revocation as for their reply. The Court The request is rejected. The Court had already indicated that the term for the answer to the counterclaim only starts to run after the claimant has obtained full knowledge of the counterclaim for revocation, which was when the defence brief was served (10 July 2025), and not when the reference brief was served (2 July 2025). Comment Why bother the Court with unnecessary requests? The Court had already stated that 10 July 2025 was the starting date of the period for the answer to the counterclaim. Moreover, it is a general principle that a period starts to run only after a party has full knowledge of the content of the submission to which it has to respond.
Full Decision Text
1 Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_79/2025 (CCR: UPC_CFI_605) Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 21 July 2025 concerning EP 3 716 655 concerning App_32869/2025 (harmonization of time periods) CLAIMANT/APPLICANT: Malikie Innovations Ltd. - GH2, 92 Lower George´s Street, Dun Laoghaire - A96 VR66 - Co. Dublin - IE represented by Miriam Kiefer DEFENDANTS 1) Discord Inc. - 444 De Haro Street, Suite 200 - CA 94107 - San Francisco - US represented by Tobias Wuttke 2) Discord Netherlands B.V. - Schiphol Boulevard 195 - 1118BG - Schiphol - NL represented by Tobias Wuttke PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent 3 716 655 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English 2 SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: infringement action – harmonization of time periods BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: The Defendants have, as permissible, submitted their statement of defence (SoD) and their counterclaim for revocation (CCR) in a joint brief. As also permissible, they have uploaded this brief in the infringement action workflow and uploaded a reference brief in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, which refers to the brief uploaded in the infringement action workflow. The reference brief was served on Claimant on 2 July 2025 within the counterclaim for revocation workflow, the brief uploaded in the infringement action workflow containing the submissions in substance with regard to the SoD and the CCR was served on Claimant on 10 July only (due to the CMS freeze), after the formal checks had been completed. Against this backdrop, as a precautionary measure, the Claimant requests that the term of the Response to the Counterclaim for Revocation and the Application for Amendment of the Patent be aligned or synchronized with the term of the Reply, i.e. until 10 September 2025. The Defendants were given the opportunity to comment. At the same time, the parties were informed that harmonization of the time periods might not be necessary on the instant facts and why this is the case. The Defendants did not comment. REASONS FOR THE ORDER: The alignment of the time periods requested as a precautionary measure is not necessary, as the counterclaim for revocation contained in the statement of defence was served upon Claimant on 10 July 2025 only. The time period for filing an Application to amend the patent automatically follows the time period for filing the defence to the CCR. As already indicated in the order of 16 July 2025 for hearing the Defendants, the time period for the defence to the CCR does not commence before the claimant had been able to take note of the CCR in substance. Here, this was only the case when the statement of defence, which also contained the content of the CCR, was served on the Claimant in the main workflow of the infringement action, i.e. on 10 July 2025. ORDER: The request for the extension of the time period is rejected. The counterclaim for revocation was served on the Claimant on 10 July 2025. 3 ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_33008/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_4816/2025 UPC number: UPC_CFI_605/2025 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 32869/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application Issued in Mannheim on 21 July 2025 NAME AND SIGNATURE Böttcher Judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- Request to harmonize time periods rejected.
- Response term starts upon service of full defence brief, not reference brief.
Tags
- Service
- Time Limits