Opens in a new tab

Malikie Innovations v Nintendo of Europe (CFI, 18 November 2024)

Date18 November 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_59463/2024 · ORD_59817/2024
PartiesMalikie Innovations 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

By order of 18 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_555/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division, in Malikie Innovations’ infringement action against Nintendo based on EP 2 579 551, replaced the designation « Nintendo of Europe AG » with « Nintendo of Europe SE », which had succeeded the former by universal succession. He refused to postpone the date of service to the date of rectification: the time limit for the statement of defence runs from 17 October 2024. The order shows that a corrected misdesignation does not reopen time limits where the addressee could not have been in doubt.

Question

May the claimant rectify an incorrect designation of the defendant and, if so, should service be deemed to have taken place on the date of rectification?

Decision

Following the Court of Appeal, rectification is allowed where the defendant is not unreasonably prejudiced, which is the case where it must have been clear that the claim was directed against it. The SE, the only company of that name in Germany, had taken over the assets, premises, email addresses and VAT number of the AG (paragraph 1). The statement of claim, posted by registered letter on 7 October 2024, is deemed served on the tenth day after posting under Rule 272.6(b) RoP, namely 17 October (not 20 October as erroneously stated in the order of 5 November), nothing justified another date, and the claimant had not agreed to an extension (paragraph 2).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rule 272.6(b)
Case law cited
Court of Appeal, 3 April 2024, UPC_CoA_433/2023, APL_588420/2023.

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.


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

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 désignation de la défenderesse est rectifiée en Nintendo of Europe SE, successeur universel de l'AG, et la signification est réputée faite le 17 octobre 2024, point de départ du délai de défense.
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

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 579 551Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Malikie Innovations v Nintendo (CFI, UPC_CFI_537/2024, 28 October 2025 · Malikie Innovations v Nintendo of Europe (CFI, 23 April 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.