In(k)control v Esko-Graphics (CFI, 15 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 3 September 2026 (UPC_CFI_871/2026), given in Dutch and also published in English, the judge-rapporteur of the Brussels Local Division resumed In(k)control’s infringement action against Esko-Graphics and Esko Software (EP 3 841 735), which had been stayed for settlement talks, and construed Rule 296.3 RoP: on resumption, time limits run again from the resumption order, taking into account the time that had already elapsed before the stay. They do not start again from zero. The ruling matters to any party seeking a stay while a time limit is running.

Question

Once stayed proceedings are resumed, do procedural time limits run again in full, or only for the period that remained when the stay took effect?

Decision

Rule 296.3 RoP concerns a stay: « begin to run afresh » means that time limits run again, not that they start anew, a reading supported by the French (« recommencer à courir ») and German versions (paragraph 10). The defendants had 29 days left on 29 May 2026 for their statement of defence, now due on 2 October 2026 (paragraph 11). No circumstances justified departing from that outcome, and the defendants could still seek an adjustment under Rule 9.3 RoP (paragraph 12). In the ancillary security proceedings, submissions were set for 7 and 10 September 2026 (paragraph 16).

Key points for practice

• A stay under Rule 295(d) RoP does not grant a fresh full period: only the remainder runs after resumption.
• Practical point: calculate the remainder of each time limit on the date of the stay and, where needed, apply for an extension under Rule 9.3 RoP.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 42

Rules of Procedure

Recital 2 of the Preamble, Rules 9.3, 295(d), 296.3 and 300

Case law cited

Shangrao v LONGi, Munich Local Division, 26 August 2025, Daedalus v Xiaomi, Hamburg Local Division, 16 January 2025, Edwards v Meril, Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, 16 August 2024, Easee v Visibly, Court of Appeal, 1 July 2025.

Related decisions

• In(k)control v Esko-Graphics, 16 September 2026, subsequent order amending the timetable on a joint request.
• In(k)control v Esko-Graphics, 16 September 2026, order on security for costs.

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.