American Wave Machines v Surftown (CFI, 12 November 2025)

Date	12 November 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application Rop 333
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_837/2024;UPC_CFI_349/2025;UPC_CFI_394/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_837/2024 · UPC_CFI_349/2025 · UPC_CFI_394/2025
Parties	American Wave Machines, Inc. v. Surftown GmbH a. o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

By an order of 12 November 2025, given in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_837/2024, UPC_CFI_349/2025 and UPC_CFI_394/2025 (EP 2 728 089), the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request by Surftown, WhiteWater Era, WhiteWater West Industries and Endless Surf for review of the judge-rapporteur’s order of 4 November 2025 refusing them an extension of time. The order confirms that an extension requires a reason grounded in an actual hindrance to the defence.

Question

Does the fact that the claimant had more time, because of the confidentiality procedures, justify extending to 8 February 2026 (alternatively 12 December or 26 November 2025) the time limits for the rejoinder, the reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation and the defence to the application to amend the patent?

Decision

The request for review is admissible (Rules 333.2 and 333.3). The submissions on the claimant’s confidentiality objections are irrelevant, since the judge-rapporteur had already ruled on the Rule 262A requests. The Court of Appeal order relied on concerned exhibits unavailable to the defendants and applies only in similar circumstances. The defendants gave no reasons and identified no hindrance to their defence on the merits. The Rules accept different time periods for different briefs, and the mere fact that one party has more time is not enough, as otherwise the statutory time periods would become meaningless. The request was dismissed. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

A request for an extension must identify a concrete difficulty in preparing the defence. An equality argument based on the time the other side enjoyed does not suffice.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 19.1, 23, 262A and 333
Case law cited: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 13 October 2023

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC).

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_837/2024 official number
UPC_CFI_349/2025 official number
UPC_CFI_394/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

claimantAmerican Wave Machines, Inc.3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantSurftown GmbH a. oFollow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application Rop 333
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de réexamen est rejetée : les défendeurs n'invoquent aucune gêne concrète dans leur défense, et le seul fait que l'adversaire ait disposé de plus de temps ne justifie pas une prorogation.
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 2 728 089 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen (CoA, 13 October 2023) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 728 089`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): WhiteWater West Industries v American Wave Machines (CFI, 12 January 2 · Surf Loch v WhiteWater West Industries (CoA, 4 September 2026) · American Wave Machines v Surftown (CFI, 12 August 2025) · American Wave Machines v Surftown (CFI, 1 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.