Laitram v ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems (CFI, 2 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 2 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_642/2025), the full panel of the Munich Local Division rejects ScanBelt’s second application to postpone the oral hearing set for 8 December 2026 in Laitram’s infringement action (EP 3 251 983), and refuses leave to appeal. The order confirms that a hearing date fixed after consulting the parties will only be moved for serious reasons, set out and substantiated in the application, even where the other side no longer objects.

Question

On what conditions can a hearing date, fixed after consulting the parties, be postponed on a second application?

Decision

Once a date is fixed, postponement requests are refused unless serious reasons make attendance manifestly unreasonable, and those reasons must be stated in the application (paragraph 12). The right to be heard must be weighed against the duty to expedite and concentrate the proceedings (paragraphs 13 to 15). The second application raises nothing new and offers no evidence of the managing director’s alleged unavailability. He may in any event send an informed representative (paragraphs 10 and 16 to 20). Reverting to a date originally offered makes no difference, since alternative dates are no longer held, and 10 December is no longer available to the whole panel (paragraphs 21 and 22). Leave to appeal is refused, the decision turning on its own facts (paragraph 23).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: respond promptly when the court consults on hearing dates, any unavailability raised later must be backed by evidence, and the other side’s consent is not enough.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 42 and 52(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 37.2, 112 to 115 and 264

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.