UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 360/2025

EP2005696 · APPLIANCED DOMAIN NAME SERVER

Follow
Case details
Status
—
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
  • Léon Dijkman
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Digital communication · Computer technology
Language
—
First decided
Mar 31, 2026
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked

At the UPC: Nixu FL IP Protection LLC (5 cases)·Infoblox Inc. (3 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 2073/2026·UPC CFI 360/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-03-31
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • 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 promptly
    • Competence 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