Boa v FLA Europe (CFI, UPC_CFI_998/2025, 15 July 2026)
| Date | 15 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_998/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0000998/2025 |
| Parties | Boa Technology Inc. v. FLA Europe NV, Shinkyung Inc. |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 1 June 2026 : Boa v Shinkyung (CFI, UPC_CFI_998/2025, 1 June 2026) UPC_CFI_998/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 15 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_998/2025, UPC_CFI_738/2026 and UPC_CFI_743/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division regularised Boa Technologies’ pleadings (reply, application to amend EP 3 777 595 and defence to the counterclaim) filed on 4 May 2026 without an electronic signature. He extended the time limit retroactively to 13 July 2026, when signed versions were filed, and preserved the original filing date. The order offers a way out for representatives caught by the signature requirement of Rule 4.1 RoP as clarified by the Court of Appeal on 22 May 2026.
Question
Can pleadings filed in time but unsigned, contrary to Rule 4.1 RoP, be regularised by a retroactive extension of time while keeping their filing date?
Decision
The judge considered himself bound by the Court of Appeal’s reading of Rule 4.1 RoP in SharkNinja v SEB, under which written pleadings must be signed (paragraph 7). Rule 9.3(a) RoP allows a retroactive extension: the representative’s error was excusable, since no Court of Appeal case law had decided before 22 May 2026 whether a CMS signature sufficed, and similar filings by the same representative had drawn no objection before other divisions (paragraph 8). As the pleadings had been lodged within the time limit and the defendant suffered no prejudice, the filing date of 4 May 2026 was preserved (paragraph 9). Subsequent deadlines in the written procedure are unaffected (paragraph 10).
Key points for practice
- An unsigned pleading filed before the Court of Appeal’s clarification may be regularised by a retroactive extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP without losing its filing date (paragraphs 8 and 9).
- Representatives should check the electronic signature of every pleading lodged through the CMS.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Preamble, point 5, and Rules 4.1, 9.2 and 9.3(a)
- Case law cited
- SharkNinja v SEB, Court of Appeal, 22 May 2026
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
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.
Parties
- claimantBoa Technology Inc.6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantFLA Europe NV3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantShinkyung Inc.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 1 June 2026 Boa v Shinkyung (CFI, UPC_CFI_998/2025, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_998/2025
La division locale de Düsseldorf rejette la demande de garantie pour frais, la situation financière de la société holding du demandeur, non partie, étant indifférente.
- 15 July 2026 Boa v FLA Europe (CFI, UPC_CFI_998/2025, 15 July 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_998/2025
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge rapporteur de la division locale de Düsseldorf proroge rétroactivement le délai de dépôt d'écritures non signées et maintient leur date de dépôt initiale.
- 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 3 777 595mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Boa v Shinkyung (CFI, UPC_CFI_998/2025, 1 June 2026) cited in this record
- SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CoA, 22 May 2026) cited in this record
- Boa v FLA Europe (CFI, UPC_CFI_996/2025, 15 July 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 777 595 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Boa v FLA Europe (CFI, UPC_CFI_996/2025, 15 July 2026) · Boa v Shinkyung (CFI, UPC_CFI_996/2025, 1 June 2026) · Boa v Shinkyung (CFI, UPC_CFI_998/2025, 1 June 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.