Esko-Graphics Imaging v XSYS Germany (CFI, 28 February 2025)

Date	28 February 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Amend Document
Registry reference	App_2829/2025 · ORD_3085/2025
Parties	Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH

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 order of 28 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_483/2024, ACT_46804/2024, App_2829/2025), the Munich Local Division (Presiding Judge Voß, acting as judge-rapporteur) refused Esko-Graphics Imaging leave to extend its infringement action on EP 3 742 231 against XSYS Germany and two other group companies to the Netherlands. The order shows how strictly the division applies the diligence test in Rule 263.2: a delay of a few weeks, left unexplained, is enough to close the door.

Question

Can a claimant who learns during the proceedings that the Dutch part of its patent has been restored extend the action to that country ten weeks later?

Decision

No. The two conditions in Rule 263.2 (the amendment could not have been made earlier with reasonable diligence, and it will not unreasonably hinder the other party) are cumulative and leave no discretion (paragraphs 15 to 17). The second was met, since the defendants offer the contested embodiment in the Netherlands (paragraphs 22 and 23). The first was not: informed on 7 November 2024 of the restoration granted on 18 October, the claimant could, by consulting its representatives within four weeks, have filed by mid-December 2024, it did so only on 17 January 2025, without a convincing explanation (paragraphs 26 to 29). Reacting to the counterclaim for revocation, which also covered the Netherlands, made no difference (paragraph 30).

Key points for practice

Diligence is measured from the party’s own knowledge of the new fact, not from when its UPC representatives learned of it (paragraph 31).
Practical point: any event affecting the territorial coverage of the patent during the proceedings should be passed on to the representatives at once, and the application to amend filed within weeks.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 263.1, 263.2 and 263.3
Case law cited: Munich Local Division, 6 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_41/2024), Court of Appeal, 11 March 2024, Netgear v Huawei (UPC_CoA_44/2024), Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024).

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), Court fees and costs (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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantEsko-Graphics Imaging GmbH4 decisions in the corpus Follow 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: Amend Document
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): L'autorisation d'étendre l'action aux Pays-Bas est refusée : la demande aurait pu être présentée dès la mi-décembre 2024 et le retard n'est pas justifié.
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 3 742 231 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 3 742 231`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Esko-Graphics Imaging v XSYS Germany (CFI, 16 June 2025) · XSYS Italia v Esko-Graphics Imaging (CoA, 2 June 2025) · XSYS Prepress v Esko-Graphics Imaging (CFI, 10 February 2025) · Esko-Graphics Imaging v XSYS Germany (CFI, 21 January 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.