gb_flag germany_flag japan_flag korea_flag china_flag
Zurück zu Knowledge Bank
IP-Fälle und Artikel

UPC time limits: when procedural deadlines can be extended

Toby Willis
Toby Willis
Associate, Patent Attorney

The Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) allow for judges of the court to use their discretion in granting extensions for almost all time periods. Requests for extensions may often not be granted by the UPC, and therefore we take a look at some example decisions to help understand the circumstances which may lead to a successful request.

Rule 9.3 & 9.4 of the Rules of Procedure 

The power of the court to extend, or shorten, a time limit in response to a reasoned request of a party is provided by Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the UPC.

Rule 9.3 RoP even allows for retrospective extension of a time limit and does not set a deadline for when such a retrospective request should be submitted.

Rule 9.3 RoP is applicable to all time limits, except for a limited set of time periods, including the time limit for filing a statement of appeal, identified in Rule 9.4 RoP. Importantly, however, Rule 9.4 RoP does not prevent the filing of a reasoned request to extend the time period for filing the statement of grounds of appeal.

General principles

As set out in Edwards v Meril (ORD_55287/2024), “the court must account for the multiple purposes served by procedural deadlines; to ensure expeditious decisions, to safeguard the principle of fair trial, to protect the judicial impartiality, and to guarantee legal certainty by setting specific timeframes for procedural steps”. The Edward v Meril decision also notes that the court should bear in mind that “it must be affirmed that the power to extend the time limit should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases”.

The following paragraphs identify a number of reasons for which the UPC have granted extensions to time limits.

Agreement of the parties

The apparent simplest justification for an extension to a time period is by agreement between all parties to a case. For example, in Adeia v Disney (ORD_5020/2025) and Shenzhen Transsion v Ericsson (UPC_CFI_850/2026) agreements were made between parties to harmonise the deadlines for multiple defendants to provide their statements of defence with counterclaims for revocation.  

Fair treatment of each party

Agreeing an extension to a time period with a party could also have knock-on effects. In DexCom v Abbott (ORD_61355/2024) the UPC granted an extension for Dexcom stating it was “justified on the grounds of fairness and equity”, even though Abbott did not consent to the extension. This was because Abbott had previously obtained a similar extension with DexCom’s consent.

Hence, such an order suggests that it may be advantageous for a party to agree to another party’s request for an extension, provided doing so does not disadvantage their case, to thereby set up a favourable assessment of any potential future request of their own.

Genuine mistake

The UPC may also be willing to grant extensions where a deadline has been missed due to a mistake on the part of a party.

For example, in Optopol v Topcon (UPC_ CoA_56/2026), an extension to a time limit was retrospectively extended after a human error involving the incorrect noting of the prescribed time period in a system on which a representative relied.  It should be noted however that in this case, it was considered that the granting of the extension would not cause any delay in the proceedings.

Importantly, in contrast to re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP, there is no requirement under Rule 9.3 RoP for a retrospective request for extension of a time limit to contain evidence for due care having been taken, nor for such a request to contain affidavits from all persons involved in the non-observance of the time-limit.    

Holidays

In general, the UPC considers that the statutory time limits already take into account all relevant circumstances of a typical case, such as workload, possible holidays and holiday planning (see Valeo v Magna (UPC_CFI_459/2024)). However, there have been successful requests for extensions relating to either national holidays or representative holidays.

For example, in Maxeon v Aiko (UPC_CFI_336/2024) an extension could not be justified on the basis that the statutory time period encompassed Christmas, however the combination of Christmas (affecting both the representatives and the defendant) followed by Chinese New Year (affecting the parent company of the defendant) meant that there was a significant period of time in which parties weren’t available. An extension of time was therefore granted, though the UPC considered that only a single week extension was justifiable.

Somewhat similarly, in Orbisk v Winnow (ORD_45347/2024), an extension of one week was granted to “give a few extra days after the summer holidays have ended” for a reply to a request to produce evidence under Rule 190 RoP.

Ill health of representative

Illness may also be a reason for requesting and granting an extension to a time limit.

For example, in Snowpixie (ORD_68006/2024), the ill health of an attorney on the final day for submitting pleadings was considered a suitable reason for an extension.

However, the UPC required substantiation of the health impairment to be provided along with the delayed pleadings by the new deadline.

Provision of facts or evidence

Extensions to time periods have also been granted in relation to the provision of facts or evidence.  

In Arm v ICPillar (ORD_40335/2024) the Court of Appeal considered that due process required that access be provided to an unredacted version of a document submitted by ICPillar. Interestingly, an extension to a deadline for lodging a statement of response was granted that was defined in terms of a number of days from the day on which access was made available, rather than setting a specific deadline date.  

Conclusion

It can therefore be seen that the UPC has shown a willingness to grant extensions for a variety of reasons, with an emphasis on accommodating the circumstances of a case without adversely biasing the proceedings against a relevant party. As such, the extensions granted are typically as short as reasonably possible, and the granting of such extensions should not cause any further delay in the proceedings.

Consequently, a pragmatic approach is to request extensions, first, by mutual agreement (if possible) with all affected parties, and second, by identifying any fairness inherent in the granting of the request, including potentially mitigating actions such as knock-on extensions to deadlines of another party

Case details at a glance

Einheitspatent- und EPG Einheitspatent- und EPG Neuigkeiten
Einheitspatent- und EPG Einheitspatent- und EPG Neuigkeiten
Mehr lesen
Patent-Newsletter Neueste Ausgabe
Patent-Newsletter Neueste Ausgabe
Neuester Newsletter