HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT v LAMA FRANCE (CFI, 21 August 2024)
| Date | 21 August 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Paris (FR) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_47694/2024 |
| Parties | HEWLETT-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.
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
- Practical point: each brief must stay within its stream and answer only the opponent’s new points, restating earlier pleadings risks exclusion from the proceedings.
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
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
Parties
- claimantHEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.16 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantLAMA FRANCE5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 089 230mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 1 737 669mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Hewlett-Packard Development Company v LAMA France (CFI, 27 August 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 089 230Fluid 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 669Fluid 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.