Opens in a new tab

Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 17 September 2024)

Date17 September 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_240/2023
Registry referenceACT_549550/2023 · ORD_40903/2024 · UPC_CFI_240/2023
PartiesOerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 a procedural order of 17 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_240/2023, ACT_549550/2023, ORD_40903/2024), the Milan Local Division (P. Perrotti, presiding, A. Zana, judge-rapporteur, C. Gillet, M. Abello) refused to admit the eighth auxiliary request to amend EP 2 145 848 B1 filed under Rule 30.2 by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in its infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited, which has counterclaimed for revocation. The order applies the conditions for a late amendment strictly.

Question

On what conditions may an application to amend filed after the Rule 30.1 period be admitted under Rule 30.2?

Decision

A subsequent request must be prompted by a new attack, respond to it, have been impossible to file earlier and be capable of affecting the outcome (section 1.3), Rule 30.2 is exceptional and construed strictly. Oerlikon, which relied on prior art US ‘795 filed on 19 April 2024, later based its justification on DE ‘042, a late change of position (section 3). The request is an intermediate generalisation of paragraph [0043], contrary to Art. 123(2) EPC, and makes the number of feeders unclear under Art. 84 (section 4). It does not effectively answer US ‘795 and could have been filed with the seven auxiliary requests already lodged (section 5). Given their number, the division exercised its discretion to refuse (section 6).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 30, 50 and 263.2
European Patent Convention
Art. 84, Art. 123(2) and (3)
Case law cited
Carrier Corporation v BITZER Electronics A/S, Paris Central Division, UPC_CFI_263/2023, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v Meril Italy Srl, UPC_CFI_255/2023, Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, UPC_CFI_219/2023

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_240/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 27 September 2023 Oerlikon Textiles v Himson Engineering (CFI, 27 September 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_240/2023

    Le conseil de la défenderesse, mandaté pour consulter le dossier avant la signification, n'est pas un tiers au sens de la règle 262.1, b), sa demande d'accès est rejetée.

  2. 17 September 2024 Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 17 September 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_240/2023

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La huitième requête subsidiaire en modification n'est pas admise : elle ne répond pas utilement à l'attaque nouvelle invoquée, aurait pu être présentée plus tôt et soulève des objections au regard des art. 84 et 123, paragraphe 2, de la CBE.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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 2 145 848
False twist texturing machine
recorded proprietor: Oerlikon Textile GmbH and Co KG
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 9 September 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 9 May 2025) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.