- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United States
- within Technology topic(s)
Key takeaways
A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP is only admissible under exceptional and cumulative circumstances
The claimant must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been filed earlier with reasonable diligence, and that it does not unreasonably hinder the defendant(s) in conducting the proceedings. Both conditions must be met cumulatively (see p. 5 also referring to CoA, Meril v Edwards, UPC_CoA_464/2025).
The panel found the applicant’s justification, namely that it could not foresee the defendants’ legally unfounded objections to the original amendment (R. 30.1 RoP), insufficient. If the defendants’ arguments truly lacked legal basis, the applicant could simply have highlighted this deficiency, thus making a subsequent amendment unnessessary (p. 6).
The addition of new accused products at a late procedural stage is inadmissible under Rule 263.2 RoP if the underlying facts were already known to the claimant
The claimant sought to introduce additional accused products to its infringement case, arguing one of the defendants later briefs revealed new facts. The panel disagreed, finding the claimant’s own report, filed with the Statement of Claim, already contained all elements needed to raise the allegation earlier (p. 6).
Late submissions on infringement in a claimant’s reply on validity are inadmissible under Rule 9.2 RoP unless strictly responsive to new defence arguments
The Rules of Procedure reserve the “last word” on infringement for the defendant. A claimant’s response to the Counterclaim for Revocation may not be used to expand the infringement debate (p. 7).
2. Division
Local Division Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_530/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Review of case management orders pursuant to R. 333 RoP
5. Parties
Claimant: KEEEX SAS
Defendants: Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 949 070
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 9.2, 30.1, 30.2, 263.2, 333 RoP
To view the full article, click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]