Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 28 April 2026)
| Date | 28 April 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Counterclaim for revocation |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_869/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_869/2025 |
| Parties | Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v. Zapp AG a.o. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 18 February 2026 : Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 18 February 2026) UPC_CFI_466/2025 · UPC_CFI_869/2025
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
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
- Practical point: an objection of late filing raised during the written procedure will as a rule be decided by the panel at the hearing, it is prudent to request at the same time a further submission under Rule 36 RoP.
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
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.
Parties
- claimantDai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantZapp AG a.o2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 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
EP 3 805 415mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 18 February 2026) cited in this record
- ZTE v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 13 January 2026) cited in this record
- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic (CoA, ORD_48652/2024, 24 September 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 805 415 | Mentioned 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 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.