Bayerische Motoren Werke v ITCiCo Spain (CFI, 9 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 9 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_412/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division rejected the request by ITCiCo Spain S.L., defendant in the revocation action against EP 2 796 333 brought by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, to extend the time limit for its Defence to 29 February 2024. The order rejects three common justifications (exhibits served late, access to the case management system, illness of the representative) and stresses that an extension must be sought without delay.

Question

Do service of the Statement of claim without its exhibits, delay in obtaining a smart card for the case management system and the illness of the patent attorney justify extending the time limit for the Defence (Rule 9.3 RoP)?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur recalled that extensions lie within a discretion to be exercised with caution and only in justified exceptional cases (paragraphs 10, 11 and 18), the party having to prove an objective impossibility or very great difficulty in meeting the time limit that is not attributable to it or its representative (paragraphs 19 and 20). Postal service (Rule 271 RoP and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784) was valid even without the exhibits, as the Statement of claim set out the subject matter and cause of action with certainty (paragraphs 22 and 23). The access problem was not substantiated, and a representative awaiting access should promptly seek a solution from the Court or the Registry (paragraphs 24 and 25), the alleged illness was not proven (paragraph 26). Finally, a request filed on the last day when its cause was known earlier is contrary to fairness (paragraphs 21, 27 and 28).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a request to extend must be filed as soon as it becomes foreseeable that the time limit cannot be met, and supported by evidence, difficulties internal to the representative’s firm are not enough.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 9.4, 271.4, 333 and 334

Regulation (EU) 2020/1784

Art. 18

Case law cited

Seoul Viosys v Expert E-Commerce, Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 January 2024, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, Court of Appeal, 13 October 2023, Paris Central Division, order of 10 November 2023, UPC_CFI_255/2023

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.