ARTICLE
5 February 2024

CD Munich, 24 January 2024, Procedural Order And Information On Next Steps, UPC_CFI_1/2023

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The UPC proceedings are generally front-loaded (e.g., Preamble RoP 7). Therefore, the exchange of written pleadings is normally limited in accordance with Rule 43 RoP.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

There is no automatic right to reply to a rejoinder

The UPC proceedings are generally front-loaded (e.g., Preamble RoP 7). Therefore, the exchange of written pleadings is normally limited in accordance with Rule 43 RoP.

A request for the admission of a brief in response to a rejoinder in the written procedure is not premature

It does not follow from the fact that the judge-rapporteur may order the production of further pleadings and evidence in the interim procedure, that a request aiming at this, which was made before closure of the written procedure, is as such premature and should for that reason be rejected.

2. Division

Munich Central Division

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1/2023

4. Type of proceedings

Revocation action

5. Parties

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Sanofi-Aventis Groupe

Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.

Amgen, Inc.

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 666 797

7. Jurisdictions

Place jurisdictions

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 58 RoP, Rule 43 RoP, Rule 35 RoP, Rule 36 RoP, Rule 9.1 RoP

To view the full article, click here.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More