Lionra Technologies v Cisco Systems (CFI, 2 June 2025)

Date	2 June 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_15203/2025 · ORD_15672/2025
Parties	Lionra Technologies Ltd.

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.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Hamburg Local Division granted Lionra re-establishment of rights for the Rule 151 period, which expired on 19 March 2025, within which it had to start cost proceedings following the merits decision of 19 February 2025 against Cisco (EP 2 201 740). A retroactive extension under Rule 9.3(a) was refused. The order sets out the standard of care expected of a firm whose secretariat failed to diarise a time limit.

Question

May a party that let the Rule 151 period expire obtain a retroactive extension under Rule 9.3(a) or, failing that, re-establishment under Rule 320?

Decision

An extension, even retroactive, requires an application made before the period expires. After that, only re-establishment remains, which prevails as the specific rule. The application for re-establishment is admissible (Rules 320.2 and 320.4), and Rule 320.1 also covers the Rule 151 period.

The representative’s fault is attributed to the party (Rules 8.1 and 8.2). Lionra nonetheless showed a four-eyes control system with spot checks by lead counsel. Given that the period was extendable and the Hamburg practice of staying cost proceedings pending appeal (Rule 295(d)), the oversight of two employees was a cause beyond the party’s control. The cost proceedings continue. The order is not appealable (Rule 320.7).

Key points for practice

A documented system for checking time limits may be enough to show the care required by Rule 320.1.
Four days later, the Court of Appeal held in Hanshow that the Rule 151 period cannot be extended under Rule 9.3(a) and that only re-establishment is available.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 8, 9.3, 150, 151, 295(d) and 320
Case law cited: SES-imagotag v Hanshow, Munich Local Division, 11 October 2024, Amycell, The Hague Local Division, 1 April 2025

Related decisions

Lionra v Cisco Systems, 19 February 2025, decision on the merits apportioning 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.

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

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantLionra Technologies Ltd.3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La prorogation rétroactive de la règle 9.3(a) est exclue après l'expiration du délai, mais la restitutio est accordée, l'omission de deux employés malgré un contrôle à quatre yeux étant une cause étrangère à la partie.
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 2 201 740 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Amycell v *** (CFI, 1 April 2025) cited in this record
Lionra v Cisco Systems (CFI, 19 February 2025) cited in this record
SES-imagotag v Hanshow (CFI, 11 October 2024) cited in this record
Angelalign France Technology v Align Technology (CoA, 10 March 2026) cites this decision
Heraeus Electronics v Vibrantz (CFI, 13 January 2026) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 201 740`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Lionra v Cisco Systems (CoA, 17 July 2026) · Lionra Technologies v Cisco Systems (CoA, 12 August 2025) · Lionra v Cisco Systems (CFI, 19 February 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.