Dolby v Beko (UPC_CFI_135/2024 & UPC_CFI_477/2024)

• Dolby filed an application for admission of a further pleading, arguing that it was appropriate for each party to the infringement proceedings to be given the opportunity to submit two written submissions concerning the defendants' FRAND objection, which was raised for the first time in its statement of defence. Dolby also maintained that the defendant's "FRAND reply" (the duplicate legal part in the infringement proceedings) contained new submissions that needed to be addressed.
• The Düsseldorf LD exercised its discretion under Rule 36 RoP and granted Dolby leave to file a further pleading on the defendants' FRAND objection. It noted that this was necessary for reasons of fairness, equity and efficiency, as well as the right to be heard. The court also held that the defendant would not be prejudiced and it would not delay the proceedings because Dolby's application was filed before the close of the written procedure and it filed its additional written statement when making its application under Rule 36 RoP.
• This case illustrates the flexibility of the UPC, when necessary, to allow parties to file further pleadings provided that it does not delay the proceedings.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.