Opens in a new tab

Sunstar Engineering Europe v CeraCon (CFI, 8 August 2025)

Date8 August 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication Rop 333
Registry referenceApp_28086/2025 · ORD_32795/2025
PartiesCeraCon 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 108 413Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 3 868 480Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.