ARTICLE
9 April 2025

LD Munich, March 31, 2025, Order Of The Court Of First Instance, UPC_CFI_425/2024

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 patentee may also request amendments to the patent that are not directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim.
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Patent owners are not restricted in amending patents to counterclaims for revocation

The patentee may also request amendments to the patent that are not directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim. The purpose of Rule 30 RoP is to give the patentee the opportunity to 'save' its patent in an amended form in the event of a successful invalidity challenge – irrespective of the grounds that have been asserted in the counterclaim for revocation.

Claim adjustments in infringement actions are crucial when amending dependent claims under Rule 30 RoP

According to Rule 30 RoP, an application to amend the patent can only be submitted in response to a counterclaim for revocation. If dependent patent claims are made the subject of auxiliary requests within an application according to Rule 30 RoP, it must also be possible for the patentee to make corresponding amendments with regard to the infringement action. This ensures the infringement action reflects the amended patent and avoids situations where infringement of the amended patent cannot be pursued.

UPC proceedings should be synchronized with EPO proceedings, especially regarding amendments

Rule 295(a) RoP emphasizes harmonizing these proceedings. This applies in general and in particular with regard to Rule 30 RoP. However, such synchronisation can only work if it is possible to introduce claim versions amended by the EPO into (infringement) proceedings before the UPC. If such amendments are possible under Rule 30, it must also be possible to amend the claims of the infringement action accordingly.

New infringing embodiments can be introduced during proceedings if discovered after filing

The Court allows flexibility for patentees to address newly discovered infringing activities, ensuring infringement claims accurately reflect the alleged infringement. The patentee (i.e. the applicant) is to be allowed a reasonable period to examine the infringement with legal representatives before asserting it in the proceedings.

2. Division

Local Division Munich

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_425/2024

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement proceedings / Application for leave to change claim

5. Parties

Applicant (Claimant in the main proceedings): JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
Respondents (Defendants in the infringement proceedings): Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 787 541

7. Jurisdictions

UPC / Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 30 RoP, Rule 295(a) RoP, Rule 30.1(b) RoP, Rule 263 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.

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