Rule 25 – Counterclaim for revocation
Content
1. If the Statement of defence includes an assertion that the patent alleged to be infringed is invalid the
Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim against the proprietor of the patent for revocation of
said patent in accordance with Rule 42. The Counterclaim for revocation shall contain:
(a) an indication of the extent to which revocation of the patent is requested;
(b) one or more grounds for revocation, which shall as far as possible be supported by arguments of law,
and where appropriate an explanation of the defendant’s proposed claim construction;
(c) an indication of the facts relied on;
(d) the evidence relied on, where available, and an indication of any further evidence which will be
offered in support;
(e) an indication of any order the defendant will seek during the interim procedure [Rule 104(e)];
(f) a statement of his position, if any, on the options provided for in Article 33(3) of the Agreement and
Rule 37.4;
(g) a list of the documents, including any witness statements, referred to in the Counterclaim for
revocation together with any request that all or part of any such documents need not be translated and/or
any request pursuant to Rule 262.2 or Rule 262A. Rule 13.2 and .3 shall apply mutatis mutandis; and
(h) insofar as the proprietor of the patent is not claimant in the infringement proceedings, the information
required by Rule 13.1(b) and (d) in respect of said proprietor.
2. Where the claimant is not the proprietor or not the only proprietor of the patent concerned, the
Registry shall as soon as practicable serve a copy of the Counterclaim for revocation on the relevant
proprietor in accordance with Rule 13.1(e) and shall supply a copy of each document referred to in
paragraph 1(h). Rule 271 shall apply mutatis mutandis. The proprietor in question shall become a party
to the revocation proceedings and shall be treated as defendant in all subsequent proceedings. The
proprietor shall provide details pursuant to Rule 13.1(e) if not already provided by the claimant.
Related Cases
- UPC_CFI_836/2024_May26 – Baussmann v Raimund Beck
- UPC_CFI_836/2024_May26_Amendment – Baussmann v Raimund Beck
- UPC_CoA_464/2024, UPC_CoA_457/2024, UPC_CoA_458/2024, UPC_CoA_530/2024, UPC_CoA_532/2024, UPC_CoA_533/2024, UPC_CoA_21/2025, UPC_CoA_27/2025 – Meril v Edwards
- UPC CoA 464/2024, UPC CoA 530/2024, UPC CoA 21/2025, UPC CoA 457/2024, UPC CoA 532/2024, UPC CoA 27/2025, UPC CoA 458/2024, UPC CoA 533/2024 – Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril
- APL 45049/2024, APL 51701/2024, APL 1926/2025, APL 44701/2024, APL 51746/2024, APL 2205/2025, APL 44702/2024, APL 51748/2024 – Meril v Edwards
- APL 45049/2024,UPC CoA 464/2024,APL 51701/2024,UPC CoA 530/2024,APL 1926/2025,UPC CoA 21/2025,APL 44701/2024,UPC CoA 457/2024,APL 51746/2024,UPC CoA 532/2024,APL 2205/2025,UPC CoA 27/2025,APL 44702/2024,UPC CoA 458/2024,APL 51748/2024,UPC CoA 533/2024 – Meril v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- UPC CoA 335/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v NanoString Technologies Inc, NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
- UPC CFI 327/2024 – Winnow Solutions Limited v Orbisk B.V.