1. Key takeaways
If the redactions in Claimant's reply brief in an infringement action are only subject to the non-technical part, it is not justified to grant the Defendant an extension of two months for filing its rejoinder brief re. this non-technical part starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part of the reply brief.
Claimant filed its reply brief and defense to the counterclaim for revocation without redactions of the technical parts (infringement and validity). However, the non-technical/FRAND part was heavily redacted. An unredacted version of this non-technical part was made available to the Defendants subsequently.
Defendants filed their rejoinder brief and reply to the defense to the counterclaim for revocation – upon a requested and granted time extension – more than 3,5 months after receiving the reply brief. Moreover, Defendants requested a (further) two months extension of their deadline to file their non-technical rejoinder brief starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part of the reply brief. Since only a two week shorter deadline was granted by the judge rapporteur, Defendants requested review of the judge rapporteur's order by the panel.
The panel refused Defendant's request. In particular, the Court pointed out that Defendants had already more than 3,5 months to prepare and file the technical part in their rejoinder and counterclaim for revocation reply brief and therefore almost 7 weeks for preparing exclusively the non-technical part of their rejoinder brief. As R. 29 (c) RoP stipulates only a one month deadline for filing a rejoinder brief when not dealing with an invalidity attack, it would not be justified to extend this deadline further. Moreover, the the Court would otherwise no longer have sufficient time to prepare the oral hearing.
2. Division
Local Division Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_219/2023, UPC_CFI_223/2023
4. Type of proceedings
Review of case management orders according to R. 333 RoP
5. Parties
Claimant:
- Panasonic Holdings Corporation (Osaka, JP)
Defendants:
- Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH (Düsseldorf, DE)
- Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. (Boulogne-Billancourt, FR)
- Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. (Milano, IT)
- Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (Den Haag, NL)
- Odiporo GmbH (Willich, DE)
- Shamrock Mobile GmbH (Willich, DE)
Patent(s)
EP 2568724, EP 2207270
1. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 29 (d) RoP, R. 333 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.