MUNICH CENTRAL DIVISION Law and Practice Contributed by: Julia Traumann and Ulrich Blumenröder, Grünecker
issues. A selection of particularly notable exam - ples is outlined in the following. Admission of Late-Filed Material, Extension of Deadline (TCL Europe v Corning) In a recent procedural order issued on 13 June 2025 (UPC 337/2025, ACT_17987/2025, ORD_25882/2025), the CD Munich ruled on two contested procedural applications in the isolated revocation action TCL Europe SAS v Corning Inc. TCL, as claimant in the isolated revocation action, sought to introduce two new added-mat - ter arguments and a consulting report from the Swedish Patent Office into the action, arguing the material became available only after the ini - tial filing. Corning challenged this on both proce - dural and substantive grounds, arguing that the proper route for such amendments would have been under Rule 263 RoP, and that the delay lacked sufficient justification. Concurrently, Corning filed an application seek - ing a four-week extension to file its defence to revocation and any potential application to amend the patent. The rationale was to accom - modate the new arguments (if admitted) and co-ordinate its procedural strategy across both the revocation and the parallel infringement pro - ceedings. TCL opposed the extension. Follow - ing a partial agreement between the parties, the CD Munich (Judge-Rapporteur Kupecz) admit - ted the late-filed material and granted a partial extension of the deadline for filing the defence to revocation. The CD Munich emphasised that the court generally respects party agreements on procedural matters unless exceptional con - cerns arise. Notably, the court did not engage in a detailed Rule 263 RoP analysis, implicitly endorsing the parties’ pragmatic approach to
incorporating the new material and adjusting timelines. Security for Legal Costs, Release of Security (NanoString Technologies Europe Ltd v President and Fellows of Harvard College) In its order of 17 December 2024 (UPC 252/2023, ACT_551180/2023, ORD_56957/2024), the CD Munich ruled that it has the power to release a security for legal costs imposed under Rule 158 RoP by applying Rule 352.2 RoP, even though Rule 158 RoP does not explicitly provide for such a release. In this case, NanoString Technologies Europe Ltd requested the release of a security deposit, arguing that its financial situation had materially changed due to a corporate restruc - turing and acquisition by Bruker Corporation, a financially sound entity. The CD Munich rejected the request. It empha - sised that the relevant financial position is that of the party itself – not its parent company or corporate group, whereby NanoString failed to provide evidence of its own independent finan - cial capacity. The CD Munich also noted that the original cost risk remains until a decision becomes final and non-appealable, which had not occurred. The decision appears to reinforce a strict inter - pretation of financial independence in cost secu - rity matters under the UPC framework. It clari - fied that while Rule 352.2 RoP can be used to release securities imposed under Rule 158 RoP, the burden lies on the applicant to prove that the underlying risk has ceased. The CD Munich also resisted factoring in the procedural stage of the case (eg, a favourable first-instance decision) when the potential for appeal remains.
21
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook