Malikie Innovations v Discord (CFI, 21 July 2025)

Date	21 July 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_32869/2025 · ORD_33008/2025
Parties	Malikie 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 21 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_79/2025 and UPC_CFI_605/2025, ORD_33008/2025), the judge rapporteur Böttcher (Mannheim Local Division) rejected Malikie Innovations’ request to align on 10 September 2025 its time periods for the defence to Discord’s counterclaim for revocation and for an application to amend EP 3 716 655, and found that the counterclaim had been served on it on 10 July 2025. The order clarifies when time starts to run where the defendant files its defence and counterclaim in a single brief.

Question

Where the counterclaim is contained in the statement of defence uploaded in the infringement workflow, and a mere reference brief is served earlier in the counterclaim workflow, from what date does the period for the defence to the counterclaim run?

Decision

The period for the defence to the counterclaim runs only from the moment the claimant could take note of its substance, namely service of the statement of defence on 10 July 2025, not service of the reference brief on 2 July. The precautionary alignment sought is therefore unnecessary. The period for an application to amend the patent automatically follows that for the defence to the counterclaim. The order cites no provision.

Key points for practice

Practical point: service of a reference brief does not start the period for the defence to the counterclaim, only service of the brief containing its substance does.

Provisions applied

Provisions: The order cites no provision.

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

claimantMalikie Innovations Ltd.5 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): Le délai de défense à la demande reconventionnelle en nullité court de la signification du mémoire en défense qui la contient (10 juillet 2025), et non du mémoire de renvoi. L'alignement demandé est inutile et rejeté.
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 3 716 655 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 3 716 655`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Malikie Innovations v Discord (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Malikie Innovations v Discord (CFI, 19 May 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.