APL_44633/2024

Decision by the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_456/2024, 21 November 2024) dismissing OrthoApnea's appeal against a first-instance order permitting the claimant to raise a doctrine-of-equivalents argument. The CoA held: not every new argument is an amendment of the case requiring leave under R. 263 RoP; raising the doctrine of equivalents does not change the nature or scope of the infringement dispute when the same patent and product remain at issue; admissibility of new arguments depends on circumstances and procedural fairness.

Court of Appeal declared the appeal against the primary first-instance order inadmissible and rejected the appeal against the review order. The CoA clarified the rules on amendment of a case versus new arguments: not every new argument constitutes an amendment of case requiring leave under R.263 RoP; the nature or scope of the dispute must change. The anonymised respondent's claims relating to admissibility of new arguments were assessed. The case involves a patent infringement action before a Dutch-language division.