Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 17 September 2024)
| Date | 17 September 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
| Registry reference | ACT_549550/2023 · ORD_40903/2024 · UPC_CFI_240/2023 |
| Parties | Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 27 September 2023 : Oerlikon Textiles v Himson Engineering (CFI, 27 September 2023) ORD_569313/2023 · UPC_CFI_240/2023
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- Practical point: a late auxiliary request must be tied, from the outset, to the new attack that justifies it, shifting the justification later weakens it.
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
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.
Parties
- claimantOerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantHimson Engineering Private Limited10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 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
EP 2 145 848mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 17 December 2024) cited in this record
- Oerlikon Textiles v Himson Engineering (CFI, 27 September 2023) cited in this record
- Oerlikon Textiles v Himson Engineering (CFI, 21 July 2023) cited in this record
- KEEEX v Adobe Systems Software Ireland (CFI, 25 June 2026) cites this decision
- Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.