UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 360/2025

—·EP2005696: APPLIANCED DOMAIN NAME SERVER

SEP (unklar)
Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Hosea Haag
Division
—
Richter
Technology
Telecommunications
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
31. März 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-03-31
    Nur prozessualProzessualInfringement Action

    The Judge-rapporteur granted the defendants' request to align the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence (and any Counterclaim for revocation) to 11 June 2026 for all three defendants uniformly. The claimant's objection was dismissed; the court found the 20-day deviation in service dates reasonable to harmonise given the efficiency benefits, and held that the claimant bore the risk of the delayed U.S. service by waiting to arrange advance payment.

    Rechtsfragen:Alignment of deadlines for multiple defendants served on different dates (R. 9.3(a) RoP)Risk allocation for delayed U.S. service where claimant failed to arrange advance payment promptlyCompetence of Judge-rapporteur under R. 331.1 and R. 334(a) RoP
Dokumente
  • UPC_CFI_360-2025_Time%20regime%20order-1.pdf2026-03-31EN
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • A deviation of only 20 calendar days in service dates is reasonable grounds to align all defendants' Statement of Defence deadlines to the latest date (11 June 2026) to streamline proceedings and reduce duplicate filings

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP; R. 23 RoP; R. 271.6(b) and 271.4(a) RoP

  • The delayed U.S. service was partly caused by the claimant waiting 10 days after the sub-registry's request before arranging advance payment, so the claimant bears the risk of deviating service dates

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: General principle of procedural good faith / risk allocation
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The requested alignment would cause a material and unjustified delay, particularly prejudicial given the patent's expiry on 19 March 2027

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: No specific RoP provision cited; claimant relied on general interest in timely proceedings

  • There is no procedural requirement under the RoP to align deadlines for different defendants

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 12 RoP; R. 23 RoP