UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 56/2026

16. Apr. 2026·EP2845534: OPHTHALMIC APPARATUS

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Oliver Stöckel (SKW Schwarz)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Matthias Sonntag (Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch PartmbB, Düsseldorf)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
28. Apr. 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-28
    Nur prozessualBerufungsentscheidungRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's request for a discretionary review of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 1 April 2026. The Court found that the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect and did not raise any unaddressed fundamental questions of law. The Local Division had properly exercised its discretion by retroactively extending the Respondent's deadline to file its Reply under R. 9.3(a) RoP.

    Rechtsfragen:Whether a request for a discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP is admissible and well-foundedWhether the Local Division erred in reclassifying an application under R. 320 RoP as one under R. 9.3(a) RoPWhether the reasoning in a R. 320 RoP application can serve as reasoning for a R. 9.3(a) RoP applicationWhether a human error by a representative's assistant constitutes sufficient grounds for retroactive extension of a time period under R. 9.3(a) RoPWhether alleged bad faith by a party affects the exercise of discretion to retroactively extend a procedural time limitWhether missing the deadline to file a defence against a counterclaim for revocation can result in a default decision
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-04-28Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-04-28Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-04-28Öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-04-16Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The Local Division's interpretation of the R. 320 RoP application as implicitly including a request for retroactive extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP was reasonable, in particular given the alternative request to allow the Reply into proceedings

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP; R. 320 RoP

  • The deadline was missed due to an excusable human error by the assistant of Respondent's representatives, who incorrectly noted the prescribed time period in the deadline-tracking system, despite a system of checks being in place

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP

  • The timing of the (implicit) request for retroactive extension was excusable given that the CoA order in Angelalign v. Angel Technology (UPC_CoA_37/2026) had not yet been issued when the application was filed

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP; R. 320 RoP

  • The retroactive extension did not cause any delay in the proceedings, as the Applicant could still respond within RoP time limits and the oral hearing scheduled for 15 December 2026 was unaffected

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The Local Division erred by reclassifying the R. 320 RoP application as a R. 9.3(a) RoP application

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 320 RoP; R. 9.3(a) RoP

  • The reasoning provided in the R. 320 RoP application was insufficient to justify a retroactive extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP

  • The Local Division erroneously confined its assessment to a single human error and failed to account for a seven-fold failure by Respondent's representatives and Respondent's alleged bad faith

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 9.3(a) RoP

  • The impugned order raises fundamental legal questions that have not yet been addressed by the Court of Appeal, requiring review

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP