UPC lives up to its commitment of delivering “expeditious and high-quality decisions”

The Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) set out a challenging timetable that all parties must adhere to during various stages of an action. For its part, the UPC aims to ensure that each party is given an equal opportunity to present its case and that high-quality decisions are delivered as efficiently as possible.

In a recent infringement action between Jef Nelissen (Claimant) and OrthoApnea S.L. (Defendant) (UPC_CFI_376/2023), the Claimant sought to amend their Statement of Claim to include a claim for infringement by equivalence. The Defendant contested the admissibility of such an amendment and, alternatively, requested a one-month extension for submitting a rejoinder to the Statement of Defense. Judge Rapporteur Granata, on 8th July 2024, allowed the Claimant’s amendment if only on the grounds that they were made in reaction to a defense against an (to that date) un-raised equivalent infringement allegation. Additionally, he rejected the Defendant’s request to extend the deadline for submitting a rejoinder by one month and instead ordered the Defendant to submit the rejoinder by 1st August 2024.

On 16th July 2024, the Defendants requested the panel of judges at first instance to review the above decision, arguing that the deadline for submitting the rejoinder should be suspended until a final substantive decision in relation to the admissibility of the Claimant’s amendment issued. By an Order dated 17th July 2024, the Claimant was required to make their submissions the very next day and in an Order dated 19th July 2024, the appointed panel of the Brussels Local Division of the UPC upheld the Judge Rapporteur’s initial decision. Consequently, within just three days of filing the request for review, the parties received a decision that provided certainty on the next procedural steps required to be taken without introducing substantive delay to the proceedings.

On 23rd July 2024, just eight days before the 1st August deadline, the Defendant appealed against the Brussels Local Division’s order and filed an application for, inter alia, a request for suspension of the 1st August deadline until the appeal proceedings in relation to the admissibility of the Claimant’s amendments have concluded. The Defendant’s argued that they would be required to invest in presenting arguments against an allegation of equivalent infringement in their rejoinder if the deadline for filing the rejoinder was not suspended. This investment would then have been wasted, if it was later decided that the claimant was not allowed to amend their case to also rely on equivalent infringement.

Given the urgency of the matter, the Permanent Judge of the Court of Appeal reviewed the Defendant’s appeal and delivered a decision on 26th July 2024, ruling that a potential waste of resources of the nature argued by the defendant is not a sufficient ground for granting a suspension. Consequently, the 1st August deadline for filing the rejoinder was not extended. 

The rapid pace of proceedings over the last few months is a testament to the UPC’s ability to review and deliver decisions in an efficient manner while ensuring that neither party is adversely affected by the stringent deadlines set by the Court.