Extension of time limit for statement of defence

​
Maximilian Häger
​
September 20, 2023
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Time limits
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. Order of 23 August 2023

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant in the main action) is the proprietor of EP3646825, asserted against potential infringers Meril GmbH (Defendant 1 in the main action and Applicant in the request for extension of time for statement of defence) and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Defendant 2 in the main action). In this proceeding, the presiding judge and judge rapporteur Mr. Zigann of the Munich Local Division had to decide whether to grant a request for extension of the time period for the statement of defence. [1]

The Applicant requested to extend the time period for the statement of defence pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) until 1 November according to Rule 9.3 a) RoP. Following the - successful - request to extend the time-limit for the preliminary objection (cf. App_557291/2023 UPC_CFI_15/2023 [2]), the Applicant further requested the extension of the time limit for filing a statement of defence. According to Rule 23 RoP the Defendant shall lodge a Statement of defence within three months of service of the Statement of claim. The Statement of claim was served on the first Defendant on 7 July and on the second Defendant on 1 August.

The Applicant argued that the request must be granted as this would lead to a concurrent time-period for lodging the statement of defence for both Defendants.

As the court already stated in its 1 August order (cf. footnote 2) the reasons presented by the Applicant do not generally warrant an extension of time-period. Specifically, harmonizing the time-period regime itself is not a justification for extending the time-period for the party to whom the statement of claim has been served at an earlier date. Harmonization, in fact, can also be achieved by shortening the time-period for the party to whom the statement of claim was served at a later date, which is possible with regard to Rule 9.3 b) RoP.

However, the court noted again that working with the new procedural rules and the Case Management System (CMS) poses significant challenges for all parties involved. Therefore, in the initial stages, a practical approach to handling these challenges is necessary. The rapporteur, therefore, exercised the discretion granted by the procedural rules to (once again) exceptionally grant the extension request. Additionally, the Claimant has consented to the extension of the time period. Since November 1, 2023, is a holiday in Bavaria, the extension was granted until 2 November 2023, Rule 301.1 RoP.

[1] App_561742/2023 on UPC_CFI_15/2023 - Final decision on request for extension of time limit for statement of defence of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court of 23/08/2023, available under: https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/23-08-23-ld-munich-app-561742-upc-cfi-15-2023-459987-2023-anonymized.pdf (German language link).

[2] Cf. summary in CIPA journal, September 2023, Extension of time limit for preliminary objection, p. 43; also available on EIP Latest Knowledge Hub under: https://eip.com//knowledge_hub/article/upc_extension_of_time_limit_for_preliminary_objection/.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​