UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 360/2025

—·EP2005696: APPLIANCED DOMAIN NAME SERVER

SEP (unclear)
Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main Infringement Action
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Hosea Haag
Division
—
Judges
Technology
Telecommunications
Language
—
First decided
Mar 31, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-03-31
    Procedural onlyProceduralInfringement 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
  • UPC_CFI_360-2025_Time%20regime%20order-1.pdf2026-03-31EN
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    RespondentLegal basis: General principle of procedural good faith / risk allocation
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 12 RoP; R. 23 RoP