ARTICLE
25 August 2026

LD Brussels, August 17, 2026, Order On Admission Of Auxiliary Request, UPC_CFI_806/2025, UPC_CFI_185/2026

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Granting leave to amend at a late stage would allow the applicant to change its litigation strategy after the fact. A diligent patentee should coordinate its EPO and UPC positions from the beginning, rather than reacting once parallel proceedings develop unfavorably.
Belgium Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Technology topic(s)

Key takeaways

An amendment to a party’s case cannot be allowed if it could have been foreseen from the outset of the proceedings (R. 263 RoP, R. 30.2 RoP)

Granting leave to amend at a late stage would allow the applicant to change its litigation strategy after the fact. A diligent patentee should coordinate its EPO and UPC positions from the beginning, rather than reacting once parallel proceedings develop unfavorably. The Court found that both cumulative conditions of R. 263.2 RoP were unmet, as the amendment could have been foreseen and pursued with reasonable diligence from the outset of the proceedings and admission at this advanced stage would force the defendant to newly assess validity and infringement of previously unasserted claims.

A party’s own lack of procedural coordination between EPO and UPC proceedings cannot justify a late request to amend

That an applicant may later need to start new UPC proceedings based on auxiliary requests allowed by the EPO but not by the UPC is a risk the applicant itself created and must bear, not a ground for admitting a late amendment.

An applicant seeking to introduce new auxiliary requests must show a clear connection between those requests and the specific invalidity arguments raised in the counterclaim for revocation (R. 30.1(b) and R. 30.2 RoP)

Since the counterclaim for revocation determines the scope of the revocation proceedings, an auxiliary request directed at claims never challenged in that counterclaim does not qualify as a defence to it and can be refused admission on that basis alone.

Division

Local Division Brussels

UPC number

UPC_CFI_806/2025, UPC_CFI_185/2026

Type of proceedings

Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation

Parties

Claimant (infringement action) / Defendant (counterclaim for revocation): Barco NV

Defendants (infringement action) / Claimants (counterclaim for revocation): Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.; Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV

Patent

EP 3 732 827

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 263.1 RoP, R. 263.2 RoP, R. 30.1(b) RoP, R. 30.2 RoP

LD Brussels_17 Aug 2026_UPC_CFI_8062025__UPC_CFI_1852026

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]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More