- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in Australia
- within Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
In a recent procedural order (UPC_CFI_697/2025), the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has provided guidance on the limits of acceptable written submissions in proceedings for provisional measures.
The applicants, all Merz entities, sought provisional measures under Article 62 UPCA concerning EP 2377536 and a related SPC. Their 30-page application was met with an objection from the defendant Viatris Santé extending to approximately 480 pages.
Merz responded to Viatris's lengthy submission by filing a procedural application under Rule 9 RoP requesting the Court limit the length of Viatris's objection. The primary claim was for Viatris to condense their 480-page objection to 70 pages, with Merz being permitted 40 pages for their response. In the alternative, Merz proposed that Viatris reduce its filing to 100 pages, with Merz allowed 70 pages in reply. Merz argued for their request by stating that "this manifest disparity in the parties' written submissions will deprive the Applicants of an otherwise equal opportunity to defend their case" and "overburden the Court with prolix submissions contrary to procedural economy". That was especially relevant given the tight timeline leading to the scheduled hearing on 10 October 2025.
The Court agreed that such a filing was not appropriate in the context of provisional measures, and particularly so because of the expedited timeline established by the judge rapporteur. It was ordered that Viatris produce a condensed objection limited to 70 pages, while permitting Merz a 40-page reply. A case management hearing was also scheduled before the hearing to "organise its practical modalities".
The principles of procedural economy, fairness, and efficiency are explicitly referenced in the Order, and this highlights how the UPC is actively shaping its procedural culture. The Court will act to safeguard equal opportunity between parties and to guarantee that urgent proceedings retain their summary and expedited character. While not mentioned in the Order, Article 42 UPCA explicitly sets out that:
- The Court shall deal with litigation in ways which are proportionate to the importance and complexity thereof.
- The Court shall ensure that the rules, procedures and remedies provided for in this Agreement and in the Statute are used in a fair and equitable manner and do not distort competition.
The Order was issued in the context of provisional measures. However, the same principles should be equally applicable to main proceedings, where the Court may likewise act to curb unnecessary volume or complexity in written materials in accordance with Article 42 UPCA and the RoP.
J A Kemp LLP acts for clients in the USA, Europe and globally, advising on UK and European patent practice and representing them before the European Patent Office, UKIPO and Unified Patent Court. We have in-depth expertise in a wide range of technologies, including Biotech and Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Software and IT, Chemistry, Electronics and Engineering and many others. See our website to find out more.
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.
