Below, Prof. Willem Hoyng provides his unfiltered views on the decisions that were published on the website of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) last week. His comments offer a unique insight into the UPC’s case law, as he chairs the Advisory Board of the UPC and participated in drafting the Rules of Procedure of the UPC.
Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for weekly updates.
On the go, multi-tasking or just prefer to listen? “Willem Hoyng’s UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast” – your weekly, AI-generated podcast discussing Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law of last week, offers a convenient alternative. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
1 September 2025
Local Division Munich, Knapp v Becton
UPC_CFI_848/2024; UPC_CFI_612/2025
Extension of time periods
Facts
Due to issues with the CMS, the deadlines for the Statement of defence and the Counterclaim for revocation are different, resulting in different due dates for the Reply in the infringement case and the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation or potential Application to amend the patent.
The claimant requested an extension of time periods for all the submissions until 9 September 2025. The defendant agreed.
The JR
Granted an extension to 5 September 2025 because an extension until 9 September 2025 (as well as 6, 7 and 8 September 2025) would, due to the weekend, lead to a time schedule for the next statements that would leave insufficient time for preparing the interim conference, which is scheduled for 16 January 2026.
Comment
- A very good decision. Despite the parties having agreed, the JR wants to make sure that the planned time schedule can be met!
- This is all due to the fact that there are different workflows for the infringement and the revocation cases, and the formal checks by the Registry. In the Drafting Committee of the Rules, I always opposed these formal checks by the Registry, as they cost time, manpower and are in the end not necessary. If there is something wrong, the other party can raise it in the proceedings. I have also opposed the necessity of raising a Counterclaim for revocation. Why can you not raise the invalidity as an inter partes defence? In cross-border cases, where you only raise the invalidity inter partes, this now also leads to complications. However, I was outvoted every time! You win some, you lose some!
1 September 2025