- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- within Transport topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
A number of 42 auxiliary requests (ARs) in response to e Counterclaim for Revocation may be deemed unreasonable; the court can order the patentee to provide a structured tabular overview for procedural efficiency (Rule 30 RoP).
The court clarified that any further combinations of ARs not included in the claimant's initial application to amend would require a separate, subsequent request under Rule 30.2 RoP.
While deferring the final decision on admissibility to the interim conference, the court criticized the claimant for not providing a clear, objection-related overview for its forty-two ARs.
An unreasonably high number of ARs can justify a limited extension of time for the defendant's rejoinder (Rule 9.3 RoP).
The court granted a one-week extension but explicitly stated this would not affect the dates already set for the interim conference and oral hearing, thus safeguarding procedural expedition.
2. Division
Local Division The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement / Counterclaim for Revocation
5. Parties
CLAIMANT/ DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, Rue de l'Institut 89, 1330
Rixensart, Belgium
DEFENDANTS/ CLAIMANTS IN THE COUNTERCLAIM
- C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Rivium Westlaan 142, 2909LD Capelle aan den Ijssel, the Netherlands
- Pfizer Export B.V., Rivium Westlaan 142, 2909 LD Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands
- Pfizer B.V., Rivium Westlaan 142, 2909 LD Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands
et al.
1. Patent(s)
EP 2 590 626
2. Jurisdictions
UPC
3. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 30.1 RoP, Rule 9 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.
[View Source]
