LD The Hague, June 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1470/2026

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.

Explore Firm Details

Effective service date for an unrepresented defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court is calculated under R. 271.6.b RoP, subject to the “unless” conditions of that rule.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Henri Kirner’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Intellectual Property topic(s)
in United Kingdom
with readers working within the Retail & Leisure and Construction & Engineering industries

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Effective service date for an unrepresented defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court is calculated under R. 271.6.b RoP, subject to the “unless” conditions of that rule.

Where multiple defendants are served at slightly different times, the Court may set under R. 9.3 RoP uniform dates for the lodging of a Preliminary Objection (R. 19.1 RoP), the Statement of Defence (R. 23 RoP), and any Counterclaim for Revocation (R. 25.1 RoP), ensuring orderly proceedings. The effective service date for one defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court was deemed to be the tenth day following posting under R. 271.6.b RoP and the dates for lodging the submissions for all defendants were calculated based on this effective service date. However, the effective service date remains subject to the conditions set forth in the latter part of that rule, which provide for potential challenges to the effectiveness of service (“unless it has failed to reach the addressee, has in fact reached him on a later date or the acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent has not been returned”). Because the unrepresented defendant had not yet appeared in the proceedings, it could not have raised any objection under R. 271.6.b RoP. The judge-rapporteur therefore aligned the deadlines for all defendants but included an express proviso preserving the absent defendant’s right to challenge the service date at a later stage.

2. Division

LD The Hague

3. UPC number

UPC-CFI-1470/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement action (procedural order on deadline alignment)

5. Parties

Claimants: Ferring B.V., Ferring International Center S.A., Ferring Portuguesa – Produtos Farmacêuticos, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda, Ferring S.A.S., Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S
Defendants: Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare France S.A.S., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Polska Sp. z o.o., Laboratori Fundació Dau, Pharmadox Healthcare Limited, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda

6. Patent(s)

EP 4 512 389

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3 RoP, R. 19.1 RoP, R. 23 RoP, R. 25.1 RoP, R. 271.6.b RoP, R. 331.1 RoP, R. 334.a RoP.

To view the full article please 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.

[View Source]

LD The Hague, June 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1470/2026

Contributor

1. Key takeaways

Effective service date for an unrepresented defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court is calculated under R. 271.6.b RoP, subject to the “unless” conditions of that rule.

2. Division

3. UPC number

4. Type of proceedings

5. Parties

6. Patent(s)

7. Jurisdictions

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Intellectual Property

Contributor

Germany