1 Key takeaways
Harmonization of time limits is justified for efficient case management in multi-defendant cases
The Court aligned time limits for statements of defense for defendants represented by the same counsel and with close corporate ties to avoid procedural complications and promote efficiency.
Harmonized time limit for statements of defense also applies to any counterclaim for revocation
The time limit for statements of defense automatically extends to filing any counterclaim for revocation by the defendants.
Request for time extension requires concrete justification, not just general claims of complexity
The Court rejected the request for a longer extension beyond harmonization, finding the defendants' arguments are too vague and lack specific factual support.
The Court sets the time limit if no agreement is reached
The claimant and defendants attempted to agree on a uniform time extension, but the Court intervened as consensus on the length could not be reached.
2 Division
LD Mannheim
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_344/2025
4 Type of proceedings
infringement action, request for time extension
5 Parties
Claimant/Respondent: Irdeto B.V., Netherlands
Defendants/Applicants: DJI Europe B.V., Netherlands; DJI GmbH, Germany; Solectric GmbH, Germany
Defendant: SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China
6 Patent
EP 2 831 787
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 23 RoP, Rule 9.3 (a) RoP
2025-06-27-LD-Mannheim-UPC_CFI_344-2025-ORD_28596-2025-App_28345-2025
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.
