Fisher & Paykel Healthcare v Flexicare (Group) (CFI, UPC_CFI_480/2025, 15 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 15 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_480/2025), the Milan Central Division refused to admit auxiliary requests 2A to 13A, filed « as a mere precaution » by Flexicare, proprietor of EP 4 185 356, in its rejoinder in Fisher & Paykel Healthcare’s revocation action. The order, also published under a second entry in the same file, applies Rule 30.2 strictly: the clarity objection was foreseeable and should have been addressed in the application to amend itself.

Question

May the proprietor introduce new auxiliary requests at the rejoinder stage in response to a clarity objection (Art. 84 EPC) raised in the reply?

Decision

The implicit request for admission was admissible (paragraphs 10 and 11) but refused. Rule 30.2, applicable to revocation actions through Rule 50.2, is a strict preclusion rule allowing subsequent amendments only in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 7). Filing as a precaution is no basis for admission (paragraph 13). The proprietor should and could have foreseen the clarity objection, which had to be dealt with in the application to amend (paragraph 14). The new requests further limit the claim, whereas the Rules aim to prevent amendments being introduced in little steps (paragraph 15). The time left before the oral hearing is not a sufficient reason for admission (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• Auxiliary requests should anticipate, from the defence to revocation onwards, the clarity objections that the proposed amendments may attract.
• Filing as a precaution and the time remaining before the hearing are not exceptional circumstances under Rule 30.2.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Preamble

Rules of Procedure

Preamble and Rules 30.1(b), 30.2, 49.2(a) and 50.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 84 and 123(2) and (3)

Case law cited

Meril v Edwards, Paris Central Division, 27 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), TRUMPF v IPG, Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 September 2025, Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 27 June 2024, 10x Genomics v Vizgen, Hamburg Local Division, 20 December 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.