Sabrina Smyczek

Nov 13, 2024 | mondaq.com | Sabrina Smyczek

The Court does not evaluate reasons for revocation that the Claimant has not raised. The Claimant defines the scope of evaluation for a revocation action. If a party, in its first submission, raises an argument and the other party takes issue with this argument in reply, the party may further substantiate its initial argument in its second submission. The parties are under an obligation to set out their full case as early as possible (Preamble RoP 7, Rule 44 RoP).

Nov 12, 2024 | mondaq.com | Sabrina Smyczek |Tobias Kaufmann

R. 30 (1) (c) RoP does not set out the consequence that all amendments proposed (auxiliary requests) should be dismissed en bloc as not meeting the criterion of being reasonable in number. Only some of the proposed auxiliary requests may be admitted. The Court can limit a patent by an amendment of the claims and revoke it in part according to Art. 65 (3) UPCA independent of an application to amend the patent (Rule 50 (2) RoP).

Aug 13, 2024 | mondaq.com | Sabrina Smyczek

Rule 30.2 RoP leaves open the time of a decision on the admission of a subsequent request for amendment of the patent The time of the decision is at the discretion of the court. The judge-rapporteur may postpone such a decision. A rejecting order is not required. As long as the subsequent request for amendment has not been admitted by the court, it is inadmissible.

Aug 12, 2024 | mondaq.com | Sabrina Smyczek

Written pleadings are served by the Registry in the electronic CMS of the Court unless service cannot be effected by means of electronic communication (R. 278.1 and 278.2 RoP) Prior communication between the parties themselves of the written pleadings via another electronic system like the German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach, (beA)) cannot be considered as effective service under Rule 278.1 RoP.

Aug 12, 2024 | mondaq.com | Sabrina Smyczek

Strict application of R. 263.1 RoP regarding a party's application for leave to change its claim Pursuant to R. 263.2 RoP, leave shall not be granted if the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage and (b) the amendment will not unreasonably hinder the other party in the conduct of its action. Both requirements must be met independently.