Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 15 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 January 2025, the Milan Local Division (judge-rapporteur Alima Zana) extended to 27 February 2025 the time limit for Alpinestars, first defendant in Dainese’s infringement action (UPC_CFI_472/2024, EP 4 072 364 and EP 3 498 117), to file its statement of defence and any counterclaims, so as to take account of the EPO opposition appeal hearing set for 13 February 2025. The order shows an extension of time being used as a flexible alternative to a stay.

Question

May the time limit for the defence be extended to allow a forthcoming EPO decision to be taken into account, despite the claimant’s objection?

Decision

The Court recalled the principles of proportionality, flexibility and fairness in the Preamble, the power to extend time limits on a reasoned request (Rule 9 RoP) and the framework for a stay (Rules 118 and 295(a) RoP, Art. 33(10) UPCA). Coordination with the EPO appeal proceedings is better achieved by an extension than by a stay, which preserves overall efficiency. The adversarial principle is protected: on a reasoned request, the claimant and the other defendants may be given time to comment on the EPO decision (Rule 36 RoP). The lateness of the request causes no significant delay. Dainese’s objections, including its alternative proposal of 20 February 2025, were rejected.

Key points for practice

• Where an EPO decision is imminent, a targeted extension of the time limit for the defence lets it be brought into the debate without staying the proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(10)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 23, 36, 118 and 295(a)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_511/2024, Carrier v BITZER Electronics, Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_22/2024 (relied on by the parties)

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.