Sunstar Engineering Europe v CeraCon (CFI, 8 August 2025)
| Date | 8 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application Rop 333 |
| Registry reference | App_28086/2025 · ORD_32795/2025 |
| Parties | CeraCon GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 8 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_745/2024 and counterclaim UPC_CFI_200/2025), the Mannheim Local Division (Presiding Judge Tochtermann, Judge Böttcher as judge rapporteur, Judge Bessaud and technically qualified Judge Gaillarde) rejected CeraCon’s request for review of the judge rapporteur’s order of 6 June 2025, which had refused leave to add to its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 a lack of novelty attack based on EP 3 868 480 A1. The order matters to any defendant who comes across prior art late: diligence is shown through the initial search.
Question
Could the judge rapporteur refuse, under Rule 263 RoP, the addition of prior art found by chance two months after the counterclaim was filed?
Decision
The panel holds that the impugned order applied the correct standards: Rule 263 RoP confers a discretion, which also governs amendment of a counterclaim, and requires the parties’ interests to be weighed against the public interest in efficient proceedings. Where prior art could have been found by a usual search, special circumstances are needed to justify a late amendment. CeraCon merely substitutes its own balancing for that of the judge rapporteur. The amendment is in any event excluded under Rule 263.2(a) RoP: CeraCon has not shown reasonable diligence, since the search string it relied on did not bring EP’480 into the search report and no explanation was given for the search provider’s omission. Any hardship can be dealt with through a stay or a conditional decision (Rule 118.2 RoP).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a defendant seeking to add prior art must be able to explain why its initial search did not reveal it, a chance discovery is not enough.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 25.1, 118.2, 263 and 333
- Case law cited
- TGI Sport Suomi Oy v AIM Sport Development AG, Court of Appeal, 11 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_169/2025)
Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantCeraCon GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 333
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de réexamen est rejetée : le refus d'ajouter une antériorité trouvée par hasard à la demande reconventionnelle en nullité est confirmé, faute de diligence raisonnable au sens de la règle 263.2(a).
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Patents mentioned
EP 4 108 413mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 3 868 480mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- TGI Sport Suomi v AIM Sport Development (CoA, 11 April 2025) cited in this record
- CeraCon v Sunstar Engineering (CoA, 2 September 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 108 413 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): CeraCon v Sunstar Engineering (CoA, 2 September 2025) · Sunstar Engineering Europe v CeraCon (CFI, 6 June 2025) · CeraCon v Sunstar Engineering (CFI, 6 June 2025) · Sunstar Engineering Europe v CeraCon (CFI, 30 May 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
EP 3 868 480 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): CeraCon v Sunstar Engineering (CoA, 2 September 2025) · CeraCon v Sunstar Engineering (CFI, 6 June 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.