Download now: life sciences - whitepaper: building an investable ip portfolio
​

Discretion allowing in expert declarations

No items found.
​
February 9, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Evidence (expert)
Other procedural aspects
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Ors v Amgen Inc (UPC_CFI_1/2023)

Order dated 24 January 2024 (ORD_2233/2024)

The pleadings in this revocation action had progressed to the rejoinder by defendant (Rule 43.1(d)). Such rejoinder is "limited to a response to the matters raised in the Reply" (Rule 52) and is the final stage of the written procedure envisaged in the Rules of Procedure.

The claimants made a request for the court to allow a further submission in response to the rejoinder including expert declarations, on basis that the expert declarations accompanying the defendant's rejoinder introduce new points, some of which are inaccurate and require a response. The claimants rely on the court's discretion under Rule 9.1 RoP and the principles of flexibility and fairness. The defendant argued that pleadings have closed and the claimants' request is premature and should be made at the interim conference.

Decision

The judge-rapporteur allowed in the material.

First, during the written procedure, Rule 58, together with Rule 36, provides that the judge-rapporteur "may allow the exchange of further written pleadings" on a "reasoned request by a party". Further Rule 9.1 provides a discretion to make a procedural order on a reasoned request by a party "at any stage" of the proceedings. While Rules 103 and 104 allow the judge-rapporteur to order further pleadings and evidence during the interim procedure, that does not mean that a request made before the written procedure closes is premature and should be rejected.

The exchange of written pleadings is normally limited in accordance with Rule 43 RoP. Departing from this framework is a matter of discretion bearing in mind conducting proceedings in an efficient, proportionate, fair and equitable way. There are a small number of discrete new points, the declarations are concise (only six pages) and the request seems to be a bona fide attempt to respond to the new points.

A request from the defendant, relying on the right to be heard, to make a further reply brief was rejected.

The judge-rapporteur further decided that there was no need for the interim conference which had been provisionally scheduled and set the date for closure of the written procedure as 6 February 2024 (Rule 101 and Rule 58 together with Rule 35(b)). The main oral hearing had already been set for 4 June 2024.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​