1. Key takeaways
Extension of time periods requires balancing the interests of the parties, the court, and the public (R. 9.3(a) RoP)
Extensions are granted only in justified exceptional circumstances to ensure efficient proceedings. The court considers whether the requested extension will jeopardize the preparation of the oral hearing (reason 2.c)).
In this case, the Defendants' request for a three-week extension was granted due to new technical arguments raised by the Claimant involving third-party software and a security environment. The court found the Defendants' need for additional time to consult with a third-party developer and a private expert plausible.
The Court expressly mentions that all other circumstances invoked by Defendants (holidays, unavailability of the private expert for one week due to a conference) are not decisive for an extension of a time period.
Time periods for related pleadings in infringement and revocation proceedings are generally aligned
To allow parties to reconcile arguments on infringement and validity, extensions granted in one proceeding are often mirrored in the other, unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise (reason 2.e)).
The Defendants' extension for the rejoinder in the infringement proceedings was also applied to their reply in the revocation proceedings to maintain consistency and allow for a coordinated defense strategy.
2. Division
LD Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_750/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action, Request for Extension of Time Periods
5. Parties
Claimant: Fingon LLC
Defendants: Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
6. Patent
EP 2 839 403
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 9.3(a) RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
