Philipp Bovenkamp’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- with readers working within the Construction & Engineering industries
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- within Privacy, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
New arguments submitted late in the proceedings may be disregarded to uphold the front-loaded procedure (R. 9.2 RoP)
The court has the discretion to declare inadmissible new non-infringement arguments and evidence that a defendant introduces for the first time in its Rejoinder.
Defendants must present all grounds for non-infringement in their initial Statement of Defence (R. 24 RoP)
This principle is rooted in the RoP Preamble’s objectives of efficiency and fairness. Introducing new arguments in the final written submission contravenes the UPC’s front-loaded procedural framework.
Late filing is only justified if it responds to genuinely new arguments from the claimant
The court found the claimant’s interpretation in its Reply was consistent with its initial Statement of Claim, so there were no grounds to justify the defendant’s late submission.
2. Division
Paris Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_684/2025
UPC_CFI_2279/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings
5. Parties
Claimant: Align Technology, Inc.
Respondents/Defendants:
- Angelalign Technology Inc.,
- Angelalign France Technology SASU,
- Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.,
- Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and
- Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 237 738
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 9.2 RoP, Rule 24 RoP, Rule 333 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]