UPC_CFI_996/2025; UPC_CFI_737/2026; UPC_CFI_742/2026 – Boa Technology v FLA Europe

Expert Commentary

Formalities Facts 1. Defendant 2 asked the Court to disregard the Reply to the Statement of defence, as it was not signed which is a requirement (see R. 4.1 RoP and the Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_61/2026), as the document itself should be signed. 2. The request to “disregard” was not repeated in the operative part of the Rejoinder and the Rejoinder contained a reaction to the Reply to the Statement of defence. The JR The JR provides extensive reasoning as to why he is extending the deadline for filing the Reply to the Statement of defence with retroactive effect. The document had in the meantime had been filed with a signature. Among other things, he states that defendant did not suffer any disadvantage, as evidenced by the rejoinder. Comment 1. What is the interest for defendant 2 for raising this formality, you may wonder. 2. If defendant 2 had not flagged it, the Court would have noticed it and would have had to decide that the Reply was not filed. So defendant 2 in essence helped the claimant. However, if there would have not been a Reply there could have not been a right to file a Rejoinder and apparently defendant 2 did not want forfeit that possibility. So in the end it was (also) in his own interest.

Full Decision Text

Düsseldorf Local Division Procedural Order (R. 9.2. RoP and R.9.3(a) RoP) Issued on 15 July 2026 Concerning EP 3 003 087 B1 **CLAIMANT/APPLICANT** Boa Technologies Inc. 3575 Ringsby Court Suite 200, Denver, CO 80216, United States of America Represented by: Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH Königsallee 19, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany) Co-Represented by: Dr. Jörn Peters (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH Königsallee 19, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany) Julien Thon (CASALONGA SAS, Centre Regus - 26 avenue Jean Kuntzmann, 38330 Montbonnot - Saint-Martin, France) Floriane Codevelle (CASALONGA SAS) Electronic address for servicing: b.grzimek@casalonga.com j.peters@casalonga.com Hereafter referred to as: Claimant or BOA **DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS** (1) FLA Europe NV Lindestraat 58, 9700 Oudenaarde, Belgium Represented by: Dr. Richard Schloetter, Heumann Intellectual Property Law Oettingenstraße 25, 80538 Munich, Germany Co-Represented by: Felix Daul, HGF Munich Neumarkter Str. 18, 81673 Munich, Germany Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereire, 75852 Paris Cedex 17, France Electronic Address for servicing: r.schloetter@heumannlaw.com Hereafter referred to as: Defendant 1 or FLA (2) Shinkyung Inc., 6, Ecodae-ro 37beon-gil, Gangseo-gu, Busan, South Korea Represented by: Dr. Martin Köhler, Hyong Rokh Monegier, Stein Straße 20, 40212, Düsseldorf, Germany Co-Represented by: Dr. Mirko Weinert (HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Düsseldorf) Joscha Torweihe (HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Düsseldorf) Simon Heilmann (HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Düsseldorf) Electronic Address for servicing: martin.koehler@hoyngrokh.com Hereafter referred to as: Defendant 2 or SHINKYUNG **PATENT AT ISSUE** Number EP 3 003 087 B1 **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:** English **SUBJECT MATTER:** R. 4.1 ROP - R. 9.2. ROP - R. 9.3(a) RoP **PANEL - LOCAL DIVISION** Presiding Judge: Bérénice Thom Judge-Rapporteur /Legally Qualified Judge: Samuel Granata Legally Qualified Judge: Ingo Rinken Technically Qualified Judge: (to be appointed) **DECIDING JUDGES:** Order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur **PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES** Based on the procedural timelines set out in the Rules of Procedure (RoP), on 4 May 2026 the Claimant submitted its Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP) and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR). These submissions were introduced as one body of text and not as separate submissions. In its Rejoinder, Defendant 2 raised the following issue, comprising a request to "disregard" the RE (which was not repeated in the operative part of the Rejoinder): “The RE has not been submitted within the applicable deadline. Contrary to R. 4.1 RoP, the RE submitted by Claimant is not signed. As the Court of Appeal has found, the statement itself must bear an electronic signature to fulfil the requirement set out in R. 4.1 RoP (CoA, UPC_CoA_61/2026, Order dated 22 May 2026, mn. 12 – SharkNinja ./ . SEB). Therefore, the RE does not comply with these formal requirements and must be disregarded (R. 9.2 RoP). Claimant cannot justify his failure by claiming lack of knowledge, since, as evidenced by the signature in the parallel proceeding (UPC_CFI_1141/2025), Claimant was aware of the signature requirement”. On 13 July 2026, the Claimant submitted an "Application for a procedural order regarding Defendant 2’s Objection under Rules 4.1 and 9.2. RoP". Along with this application, the Claimant submitted on the same date (13 July 2026) the submissions referred to under §1, which were signed electronically. In mentioned application the Claimant requests the following: As a primary request: * admit the signed versions of the Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), the Application to Amend (AAP) and the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR), filed together with the present Application, as regularised versions of the pleadings lodged on 4 May 2026; * declare that the filing of those signed versions is sufficient, insofar as necessary, to regularise any alleged formal defect arising from the absence of a separate electronic signature affixed to the pleadings lodged through the CMS on 4 May 2026; * declare that the RE, the AAP and the DCfR together with the corresponding exhibits shall be deemed to have been validly lodged on 4 May 2026 and that their original filing date shall be preserved. In the alternative: * pursuant to Rule 9.3(a) RoP, grant any extension of time that the Court may consider necessary to regularise the filing of the signed versions of the RE, the AAP and the DCfR. II. The Claimant's arguments can be summarised as follows: * The Defendant 2’s request is limited to the RE. * The Claimant’s representative acted on the basis of a reasonable interpretation of the applicable procedural framework at the time of filing. The Claimant’s representative’s interpretation was based on the operation and functionalities of the CMS filing process. The Claimant describes this CMS filing process, which includes several steps requiring the representative to provide and confirm signature-related information before the submission can be completed. This approach was further supported by the manner in which the UPC representative had previously submitted pleadings via the CMS without any objection being raised by the Registry, the Court, or any opposing party (Paris Central Division, UPC-CFI-1325/2026; Paris Central Division, UPC_CFI_528/2025; Paris Local Division, UPC_CFI_130/2025). * The Claimant does not seek to reopen the interpretation of Rule 4.1 RoP adopted by the CoA in its order of 22 May 2026 (see infra). * The fact that the Claimant was aware of the need for pleadings to be signed, as evidenced by the signed pleadings filed in the parallel proceedings (UPC_CFI_1141/2025), is not determinative in view of the above. As the Claimant's application is in response to the Defendant 2's request, the Court deems it not necessary to allow the Defendant 2 to submit any further comments regarding mentioned application. **GROUNDS OF THE ORDER** Although the issue/request raised by Defendant 2 appears to be confined to the RE, and the Claimant persuasively asserts that the request in question cannot be granted since the AAP and the DCfR form part of the same body of text as the RE, the Court is bound to adhere to the interpretation and clarification pertaining to R. 4.1. RoP which the CoA provided in its Order dated 22 May 2026 (UPC_CoA_61/2026) (SharkNinja v. SEB) (hereafter referred to as "SharkNinja v. SEB"). In this order, the CoA clearly stated that, according to R. 4.1 RoP, "written pleadings and other documents shall be signed" (§ 10). The Court grants an extension of time retroactively until 13 July 2026, the date on which the Claimant regularised its filings by submitting electronically signed versions of the RE, the AAP and the DCfR. The Court justifies this decision as follows: * R. 9.3 (a) RoP expressly allows the retroactive extension of a time period and as such Claimant’s application is allowable (cf. headnote 2 SharkNinja v. SEB order). * The Claimant’s representative indeed submitted written submissions to the UPC in the past without an electronic signature (but following the CMS’s upload procedure). The Claimant convincingly proves that, in earlier proceedings where the same representative was mandated, no issue was raised regarding the absence of an electronic signature on the submissions (cf. Paris Central Division UPC-CFI-0001325/2026; Paris Central Division UPC_CFI_528/2025; Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_130/2025). * It was only after the Claimant submitted its RE, AAP and DCfR on 4 May 2026 that the CoA issued guidelines and clarification on 22 May 2026 regarding the necessity of an electronic signature (SharkNinja v. SEB). The Court also notes that Defendant 2 did not submit its request immediately after the Claimant submitted its non-electronically signed RE, AAP and DCfR. Seemingly the Defendant 2 also only became aware of this interpretation after the SharkNinja v. SEB order was issued, and used it to request that the RE be disregarded. * As there was no case law of the CoA on the question as to whether the signature on the CMS should be considered the signature required under R. 4.1 RoP, the Claimant’s (representative’s) error is excusable. The principles of fairness and equity (see preamble RoP under 5) justify that in cases like this the requested time extension is granted (cf. SharkNinja v. SEB § 16). * Taking into account the above, the fact that the Claimant submitted its RE, AAP and DCfR with an electronic signature on 4 May 2026 in the parallel action (UPC_CFI_1141/2025) does not affect the above reasoning in any way. III. The Court holds that 4 May 2026 is reserved as the original filing date for the RE, AAP and DCfR, which were submitted with an electronic signature on 13 July 2026. The Court justifies this decision as follows: * R. 9.2. RoP allows the Court to disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit set by the Court or the RoP. * The preservation of the date of 4 May 2026 is justified, as the non-electronically signed RE, AAP and DCfR, together with the corresponding exhibits, were lodged within the applicable procedural time limit. * No procedural prejudice has been caused to Defendant 2, as evidenced by this party's subsequent submission of its Rejoinder to the RE, Defence to the AAP, and Reply to the DCfR on 6 July 2026. As such the time extension to submit a validly signed version does not affect the subsequent deadlines in the written procedure. **ORDER** The time period for the Claimant to submit its reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP) and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR) is retroactively extended to 13 July 2026, the date on which the Claimant submitted these documents together with its "Application for a procedural order regarding defendant 2's objection under rules 4.1 and 9.2. RoP". The filing date of the Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP) and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR), together with the submitted exhibits, is 4 May 2026 (i.e. the date on which the Claimant submitted these documents without an electronic signature, together with the submitted exhibits). Issued by the Judge-Rapporteur on 15 July 2026 Samuel GRANATA Judge-Rapporteur Legally Qualified Judge

Key Holdings

• A Reply to the Statement of defence must be signed as per Rule 4.1 RoP.
• The Court (JR) can retroactively extend deadlines for filing documents, especially if the formal defect (missing signature) is subsequently cured.
• The absence of disadvantage to the opposing party, as evidenced by their subsequent procedural actions, supports the retroactive extension of a deadline.
• Raising procedural formalities can sometimes inadvertently benefit the opposing party or serve the raising party's own procedural interests.

Tags

• Formalities
• Procedural Law
• Signature Requirement
• Deadline Extension
• Rules of Procedure

Related Cases

• UPC CFI 463/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. v Curio Bioscience Inc.
• UPC_CFI_1325/2025 – Van Loon v Inverquark
• UPC_CFI_115/2024; UPC_CFI_377/2024 – Hartman v Omni-Pac
• UPC_CFI_181/2025_July23 – Qiagen v bioMérieux
• UPC_CFI_315/2024 – Labrador v bioMérieux