UPC Issues Judgement In Default Against Defendant Not Engaging With Litigation

When defendants fail to engage with UPC proceedings, the Court has shown its readiness to deliver swift default judgments, as demonstrated in the recent case between i-mop GmbH and ARCORA International GmbH.

i-mop GmbH (the Claimant) filed their Statement of Claim on 25 April 2024 alleging infringement of their patent (EP 3 760 094 B1). Pleadings were served on ARCORA International GmbH (the Defendant) on 13 May 2024, but they failed to file a responsive Statement of Defence by the three-month deadline of 13 August 2024.

The Claimant's Statement of Claim included an application for judgment in default in the event that the Defendant failed to respond or take other ordered procedural steps. Having made an application for judgment in default at the outset, a subsequent provisional Order issued, noting that the judge rapporteur had concerns about some of the Claimant's requested remedies. This gave the Claimant the opportunity to provide further comments and a warning to the Defendant that a default judgment could be issued if the Claimant dealt with the Court's concerns. The Defendant subsequently failed to submit a statement in reply.

The Claimant duly filed comments to the satisfaction of the Court on 30 August 2024, with the Defendant yet against failing to respond. The Court therefore proceeded to issue judgment in default, pursuant to Article 37(1) UPCA and Rule 355 RoP, by way of an Order dated 11 October 2024 (ORD_47439/2024).

This decision demonstrates the importance of engaging with the UPC system and procedures. The UPC's willingness to provide a swift judgment in default in instances where parties fail to engage with the allegations made against them is a positive move for claimants. The Defendant may still apply to set aside this decision within one month of service (pursuant to Rule 356.1 RoP). However, it remains to be seen whether the Defendant will finally find its voice and engage in the proceedings.