Decathlon v OWIM & Others (UPC_CFI_521/2024)
Decision date:
27 August 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This was a procedural order in an infringement action brought by Decathlon in the Mannheim LD relating to patent for a self-deployable tent.
- The judge-rapporteur accepted Decathlon's request to disregard sections of the defendants' rejoinder to Decathlon's application to amend its patent and relating to the validity of the patent in suit as granted.
- Decathlon argued that the RoP restrict the content of a rejoinder to an application to amend the patent to a response to the reply to the defence to the application to amend. The defendants submitted that the impugned sections did not contain new facts or arguments, but merely summarised the parties' arguments for the convenience of the court.
- The court rejected this argument. Rule 32 RoP provides that "[t]he Rejoinder shall be limited to the matters raised in the Reply". It was irrelevant that the defendants were merely providing a summary of the arguments.
- Permitting the defendants to go beyond what is allowed in the RoP would give them an "inappropriate advantage" over the patentee, for whom no further written submission is provided for in the RoP. Further, it is up to the judge-rapporteur to request a summary if required.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.