iCAT v DENTSPLY SIRONA (CFI, 26 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_1938/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division dismissed the preliminary objection of DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland, defendants to iCAT Corporation’s infringement action on EP 1 808 129. The defendants challenged neither jurisdiction nor language: they argued that Art. 72 UPCA bars financial compensation for acts committed more than five years before the action was filed. That limitation issue does not belong in a preliminary objection.

Question

Can the limitation period in Art. 72 UPCA be raised by way of a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP?

Decision

The preliminary objection is inadmissible: it concerns only the temporal scope of certain remedies and relates to none of the grounds exhaustively listed in Rule 19.1(a) to (c) RoP (jurisdiction and competence of the Court, competence of the division, language). The order does not address the merits of the Art. 72 argument, which remains open in the main proceedings.

Key points for practice

• Limitation under Art. 72 UPCA is a matter for the statement of defence, not for a preliminary objection. A request to defer the decision to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP does not save an objection falling outside Rule 19.1 RoP.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 33(4) and 72

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5, 13.1(i), 14, 19.1, 20.2 and 125 et seq.

Case law cited

Decisions relied on by the claimant: Hurom v NUC Electronics and Warmcook, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_159/2024), TEXPORT v Sioen, Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, 31 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_9/2024), Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis, Munich Central Division, 24 August 2023 (UPC_CFI_1/2023)

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.