UPC_CFI_79/2025_May19 – Malikie v Discord
- Court
- Local Division Mannheim
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Streamlining proceedings Decision of the Judge-Rapporteur (JR) In this case, the two defendants belonging to the same group were served on different days more than two months apart. Parties agreed on a date for the Statement of Defence which was longer for one but shorter for the other defendant in order to have the same dates for (all) the written submissions. The JR ordered according to the agreement of the parties.. Comment As I have said before, this makes a lot of sense and should be standard practice between representatives.
Full Decision Text
1 Mannheim Local Division UPC_CFI_79/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 19 May 2025 concerning EP 3 716 655 concerning App_23057/2025 (harmonization of time periods) CLAIMANT: Malikie Innovations Ltd. - GH2, 92 Lower George´s Street, Dun Laoghaire - A96 VR66 - Co. Dublin - IE represented by Miriam Kiefer DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS: 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 AND THE REQUEST: Claimant sues Defendants for patent infringement. The Defendants are entities of the same group of companies. The Statement of claim was served on Defendant 2 on 2 March 2025 and on Defendant 1 on 13 May 2025. Referring to a corresponding agreement between the parties, Defendants request: that the terms for submitting Defendant 1’s and Defendant 2’s SoD and lodging a CCfR is aligned until July 2, 2025. Claimant, which has been heard, confirmed the corresponding agreement between the parties. REASONS FOR THE ORDER: The order finds its basis in R. 9.3 (a), (b) RoP. The extension of the time period for the Statement of defence for Defendant 2 and the shortening of the time period for Defendant 1 is justified by the consent of all parties and the aim of establishing a uniform time period regime, given that the dates of service vary for the two Defendants, which belong to the same group of companies and are represented uniformly. Without a uniform time period regime, there would be different time periods in the individual procedural relationships throughout the entire written procedure. This would make the conduct of the proceedings more difficult for all parties involved. In addition, the new time period will speed up the overall proceedings. The new time period for the Statements of Defence also applies automatically to the filing of any counterclaim for revocation. ORDER: The time periods for the Statements of defence are set uniformly for all Defendants at 2 July 2025. ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD_23160/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_4816/2025 UPC number: UPC_CFI_79/2025 Action type: Infringement Action Related proceeding no. Application No.: 23057/2025 Application Type: Generic procedural Application Issued in Mannheim on 19 May 2025 NAME AND SIGNATURE 3 Böttcher Judge-rapporteur
Key Holdings
- Deadlines synchronized for multiple defendants.
Tags
- Case Management
- Multiple Defendants
- Time Limits