Apple Retail Germany v Ona Patents (CoA, 21 August 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 21 August 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal rejected the reply filed by the Apple companies, appellants against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2024 refusing to change the language of proceedings in the action brought by Ona Patents before the Düsseldorf Local Division (EP 2 263 098). On appeal, a request under Rule 36 RoP for further written pleadings must be made before the interim procedure closes, which happens when the parties are summoned to the oral hearing.

Question

May a party, on appeal, file a reply, together with a request under Rule 9 RoP, after the parties have been summoned to the oral hearing?

Decision

On 13 August 2024, the judge-rapporteur informed the parties that no interim conference would be held and summoned them to an oral hearing by videoconference on 23 August 2024. On appeal, Rule 239.2 RoP exhaustively determines when the written procedure closes: upon the summons, the interim procedure is closed and the oral procedure begins, with no prior notice under Rule 35(a) RoP. A request for further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP therefore had to be made before 13 August 2024, the request filed on 15 August with the reply, based on Rule 9 RoP, was late, as Ona Patents argued in its application of 20 August. The reply was rejected and the hearing kept for 23 August 2024.

Key points for practice

• On appeal, a request for further written pleadings (Rule 36 RoP) must precede the summons to the oral hearing, which closes the interim procedure (Rule 239.2 RoP).
• A pleading filed without a prior request under Rule 36 RoP is disregarded.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 35, 36, 110.3 and 239.2

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.