Local Division Düsseldorf on Extension of Deadlines (II)

– be aware: extensions are only to be granted in (very) exceptional cases

Case Overview

In a procedural ruling of the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the defendants sought a two-week extension for filing their counterclaim and response to the infringement action, citing difficulties in accessing the Court Management System (CMS). However, the Local Division, rejected this request. 
 

The order and its reasons

The court emphasized the strict adherence to procedural deadlines as mandated by Rule 9.3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (RoP), stressing that extensions should only be granted in exceptional, well-justified circumstances.

The defendants' general claim of being unable to access the CMS for an extended period was deemed insufficient. Since all documents, including attachments, were delivered in paper form, the defendants had full access to them regardless of any CMS issues. The court found no evidence suggesting that technical difficulties prevented the defendants from uploading their documents to the CMS.

Conclusion

This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to efficient legal proceedings, highlighting the importance of strict compliance with procedural deadlines. The court's refusal to extend the deadline, despite technical challenges claimed by the defendants, reflects the UPC's focus on maintaining a swift and orderly process, ensuring that justice is administered without unnecessary delays.

Key Takeaways

• Upholding Procedural Discipline: The ruling serves as a reminder of the UPC's stringent approach towards procedural deadlines, reinforcing the principle that extensions are only to be granted in justified exceptional cases.
• Efficiency in UPC Litigation: This case exemplifies the efficiency and rigor expected in litigation under the UPC, particularly in dealing with procedural matters.

To the decision To the Blog Overview