1. Key takeaways
Re-establishment of rights rejected: Defendant did not show "due care" to meet the deadline to file their Statement of Defence (R. 320 RoP)
The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare the Statement of Defence and failed to utilize available resources like the CMS team function or request an extension. Despite the Defendant's illness, the Court found that their representative had not taken "all due care" to avoid missing the deadline. The Court highlighted that the Defendant had been previously warned about the possibility of a default judgment.
UPC emphasizes proactive case management and strict adherence to deadlines, drawing parallels to EPO practices (Case Law BoA (2022), 5.4.5)
The Court referenced EPO practices, where the use of team functions to ensure timely submissions is expected, even from one-person offices. Specific EPO cases, such as J 41/92 and T 387/11, were cited to illustrate the expectation of taking precautionary measures to meet deadlines.
2. Division
LD The Hague
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_499/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action/Application for re-establishment of rights pursuant to R.320 RoP.
5. Parties
Applicant/Defendant: [redacted]
Claimant: Amycel LLC
6. Patent(s)
EP 1 993 350
7. Jurisdictions
UPC / EPO
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 320 RoP, R. 275 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.
