Seoul Viosys v expert klein (CoA, 21 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 21 August 2025, issued in appeal proceedings UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024 between Seoul Viosys and expert klein and expert e-Commerce (EP 3 926 698), the Court of Appeal disregarded a brief lodged by Seoul Viosys after the oral hearing of 11 July 2025. The short order lays down a clear rule of conduct: once the hearing has closed, the case is ready for decision and no further written submissions will be entertained, not even to summarise the oral argument or to answer the Court’s introductory remarks.

Question

May a party, by an application based on Rule 9 RoP, file a post-hearing brief summarising its arguments in response to the introductory remarks (“Einführung”) given by the Court?

Decision

No. Under Rule 36, the judge-rapporteur may allow further written pleadings only on a reasoned request made before the written procedure closes. After that point, and all the more so after the oral hearing, there is no basis for further submissions without the Court’s prior consent. The case being ready for decision, the parties should refrain from any further exchange with the Court. The introductory remarks do not bind the Court. They serve to focus the debate, and any response belongs at the hearing, where the other side can reply. Applications App_34793/2025 and App_34805/2025 and the documents uploaded with them were disregarded.

Key points for practice

• Rule 9 cannot be used to get round Rule 36: a post-hearing brief is disregarded without its content being considered.
• Any answer to the Court of Appeal’s introductory remarks must be prepared for the hearing itself, the only stage at which it can usefully be made.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9 and 36

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.