Opens in a new tab

Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 28 April 2026)

Date28 April 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionCounterclaim for revocation
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_869/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_869/2025
PartiesDai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v. Zapp AG a.o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

In an order of 28 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_869/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division refers to the full panel the decision on the objection of late filing (Rule 9.2 RoP) raised by Dai Nippon Printing against Zapp’s rejoinder in the revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 805 415. As a precaution, she grants the claimant a further written submission until 19 May 2026, after which the written procedure is closed. The order confirms that the admissibility of allegedly new submissions lies outside the judge-rapporteur’s case management powers.

Question

Can the judge-rapporteur exclude, during the written procedure, new factual allegations contained in a rejoinder, and how is equality of arms preserved in the meantime?

Decision

The admissibility of evidence and arguments is a matter of substance, not case management: assessing relevance and lateness requires a detailed analysis which, at first instance, can only be settled with certainty at the end of the oral hearing (paragraph 4). It is therefore for the full panel, and the judge-rapporteur defers the decision under Rule 102.1 RoP (paragraph 5). Without prejudging admissibility, she gives the claimant three weeks to respond, in the interest of equality of arms, a period that does not delay the hearing set for 17 September 2026 (paragraph 6). The written procedure closes when it expires (Rule 36, paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.2, 36 and 102.1
Case law cited
ZTE v Samsung, Mannheim Local Division, 13 January 2026, OPPO v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Revocation action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: G 1/25, Take Three: Anything You Leave in the Description May Be Used Against You (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_869/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 18 February 2026 Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 18 February 2026) Application RoP262A · UPC_CFI_869/2025

    Les informations des défenderesses sont protégées au titre de l'article 58 de l'Accord et de la règle 262A, l'accès étant ouvert, outre les représentants, experts et interprètes professionnels, à quatre salariés de la demanderesse et à deux conseils du cabinet japonais Kyowa.

  2. 28 April 2026 Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 28 April 2026) Counterclaim for revocation · UPC_CFI_869/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Counterclaim for revocation
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La décision sur l'exception de tardiveté est renvoyée à la formation plénière, à l'audience ou après celle-ci, et la demanderesse est autorisée à répondre jusqu'au 19 mai 2026, date de clôture de la procédure écrite.
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 3 805 415Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 21 August 2026) · Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 18 February 2026) · Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 3 September 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.