Opens in a new tab

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024)

Date21 August 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionParis (FR) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_47694/2024
PartiesHEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v. LAMA FRANCE

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 21 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_358/2023, ACT_578697/2023, ORD_47694/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières) excluded from the proceedings most of the brief filed on 15 July 2024 by Hewlett-Packard Development Company and of the brief filed as a precaution by LAMA France on 16 August 2024, in the infringement action on EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. It restates the discipline of each stream of the written procedure.

Question

To what extent may a rejoinder revisit infringement, repeat arguments already made or address matters other than those raised in the reply?

Decision

The written procedure is divided into streams: infringement, where the defendant has the last word, validity, where HPDC as defendant to the counterclaim has it, and amendment of the patent, where LAMA has it. A rejoinder is confined to answering the points in the reply (Rule 29(e) RoP), and any further exchange requires a reasoned request (Rule 36 RoP). Only point 3 of HPDC’s brief, on validity, is admissible. The others repeat earlier pleadings, concern infringement or belong to other steps. Repeating arguments needlessly swells a file of more than 1,760 pages. LAMA’s brief, limited by Rule 32.3 RoP to the validity of the amended patent, is retained only for its points 3 and 4. HPDC’s exhibits 85 to 99 and 101 and LAMA’s new exhibits 59 to 64 are excluded, LAMA’s exhibit 49 did not breach the adversarial principle.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 12, 29(e), 32.3, 36, 191 and 333, and preamble

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.


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

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
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Seuls le point 3 du mémoire de HPDC et les points 3 et 4 du mémoire de LAMA sont recevables. Le reste et les pièces correspondantes sont écartés des débats.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 089 230
Fluid ejection device with data signal latch circuitry
recorded proprietor: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025) · LIFE 365 v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 18 April 2025) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024 · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 18 December 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 1 737 669
Fluid ejection device
recorded proprietor: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 13 November 2024) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CoA, 24 July 2025) · LIFE 365 v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 18 April 2025) · Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024 · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 2 August 2024) · HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 18 December 2023)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.