Dolby International v ASUS Computer (CFI, 24 June 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 24 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_456/2023, ACT_590109/2023, CC_21152/2024), presiding judge Thomas, acting for the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, in Dolby International AB’s infringement action on EP 3 490 258 B1 against ASUS Computer GmbH and three other companies, extended to 28 July 2024 the time limits for the Reply and for the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The order sets out how the Rule 29 RoP time limit interacts with confidentiality proceedings under Rule 262A RoP.

Question

Does time for the Reply and the Defence to the counterclaim run from the claimant’s access to the unredacted Statement of Defence, or should it be extended?

Decision

The Rule 29 RoP time limit runs from service of the Statement of Defence, even where a confidentiality application is pending. The order notes the contrary view of the Hamburg Local Division. The party concerned is not left without protection: Rule 9.3(a) RoP allows an extension, used with caution and in justified exceptional cases. That will as a rule be so where access to the unredacted version was first limited to representatives, since only access for knowledgeable staff allows the party to develop its strategy and provide technical or commercial input. The same applies to the Defence to the counterclaim, as the party must be able to align its infringement and validity arguments, including amendments. The defendants having consented to the extension, the requests for a declaration of the starting date are rejected.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a confidentiality application does not suspend the Rule 29 RoP time limit, a party whose staff lack access to the unredacted pleading should apply for an extension.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 29, 30 and 262A

Case law cited

Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce, Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 January 2024, Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 28 November 2023, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 4 April 2024, UPC_CFI_355/2023

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.