AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CFI, 10 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 11 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_214/2023, ORD_6926/2025), the Helsinki Local Division granted AIM Sport Development leave to amend its infringement action on EP 3 295 663 against the TGI Sport companies (formerly Supponor), after the Court of Appeal had referred the case back. The division allowed a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK, an extension to Germany and Spain, and new arguments based on infringement by equivalence and on intermediary liability. The order shows how flexibly Rule 263 can be applied when proceedings restart before any statement of defence, and grants leave to appeal.

Question

May a claimant amend its case under Rule 263, including by adding a party and new territories, where the action is referred back before any statement of defence has been filed?

Decision

Yes. Amendments may sit in an appendix provided the application explains them (paragraph 40). Front-loading and the right of defence are safeguarded, since the defendants receive a full three months (paragraphs 43 and 44). Adding the new defendant and Germany serves procedural economy and avoids irreconcilable decisions (paragraphs 46 to 49). For Spain, a literal reading of Rule 263.2(a) would lead to refusal, but the division declined to apply it in this restart setting (paragraphs 51 and 52). Equivalence and intermediary arguments resting on the same acts and patent need no leave (paragraphs 54 and 55). Costs were reserved for the final decision (paragraph 61), leave to appeal was granted (paragraph 67).

Key points for practice

• Relying on equivalence for the same patent and the same acts is not an amendment of the case within Rule 263.
• Practical point: a referral back before any defence opens a wide window to reshape the action, including parties and territories.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25(c), Art. 63(1) and Art. 73(2)(b)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13, 23, 220.2, 224.1(b), 263, 305.1(a) and 340

Case law cited

Helsinki Local Division, 20 October 2023, Court of Appeal, 12 November 2024, AIM Sport Development v Supponor (UPC_CoA_489/2023 and UPC_CoA_500/2023), Court of Appeal, 21 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_456/2024)

Related decisions

• Supponor Italia v AIM Sport Development, 11 April 2025, Court of Appeal order dismissing the appeal against this order.

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.