1. Key takeaways
Discretionary extension of time periods is interpreted narrowly (Rule 9.3(a) RoP)
The court will only grant extensions for procedural deadlines with caution, prioritizing efficient proceedings and avoiding undue delay.
Vacation-related absences may justify short extensions, but only if sufficiently substantiated (Rule 9.3(a) RoP)
General references to staff absences or international coordination are insufficient; only specific, substantiated difficulties may warrant a limited extension.
Commenting on a penalty request is distinct from remedying underlying deficiencies (Rule 9.3(a) RoP)
The period for responding to a penalty payment request is not intended to provide extra time to cure substantive non-compliance.
Extensions for comment periods do not affect the obligation to provide information in due time (Rule 9.3(a) RoP)
Granting more time to comment does not excuse late or incomplete compliance with prior court orders.
2. Division
Local Division Mannheim
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_162/2024, ORD_34004/2025, ACT_17365/2024, Application No. 33935/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement Action, application for extension of time limit
5. Parties
Claimant/Applicant: Hurom Co., Ltd.
Defendant/Respondent: NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 028 981
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9.3(a) 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.
