Application Order

1-As foreseen by Rule 12 RoP, the rules of procedure divide the written procedure into several successive stages: - workflow 1, relating to the infringement claim itself comprising a set of 4 statements, - followed by workflow 2 dedicated to the validity of the patent in the event of a counterclaim for revocation of the patent at issue, - finally, workflow 3 is specifically dedicated to the amendment of the patent at issue, if requested. In workflow 1, the defendant in the infringement claim has the last word. In workflow 2, the defendant in the attack on the validity of the patent in question has the last word. Finally, in workflow 3, in the event of a request to amend the patent in question, the defendant to this request has the last word. These workflows, with strict deadlines, are aimed at ensuring the most efficient and economical procedure before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the Preamble. 2- In accordance with the main principle of fairness (point 2 of the preamble), R 36 RoP allows the parties to request further written submissions to the judge-rapporteur upon reasoned request. Under R 36 RoP, the parties have the right to ask for further statements before the closure of the written procedure. In the case at hand, the Defendants did not contest that they raised new arguments. According to the Applicant, their last response should be concise (no more than 8 pages). To ensure fairness and equity in the proceedings, and considering the short timeline requested by the Applicant, the judge-rapporteur considers that the R 36 request can be granted without affecting the timeframe of the proceedings, specifically concerning the date set for the Interim Conference.

Efficiency of the proceedings, Fairness and equity principles, Stages of the written procedure according to R.12 RoP, R. 36 RoP - Further exchanges of written pleadings