Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (CFI, 14 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 14 May 2025 (ORD_18861/2025), the judge rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division ruled on Total Semiconductor’s request to file a further written submission after Texas Instruments’ rejoinder in the action for infringement of EP 2 746 957 (UPC_CFI_132/2024). The order deferred to after the oral hearing the final decision on admitting a new submission, allowed in the meantime a written response strictly confined to the new point on « AVS Class 0 », and dismissed the request for the rest.

Question

May a procedural request that has already been rejected be repeated, and should a further written exchange be opened after the rejoinder?

Decision

The request was admissible: a procedural decision is not res judicata, and although repeating a request without any change in fact or law is in principle an abuse, special circumstances were shown here, the pending review application (Rule 333) did not stand in the way of the order (reason 1). The defendants had not opened an entirely new line of defence, only the AVS Class 0 point being new, its relevance, and whether the claimant should have addressed it earlier, could only be assessed once infringement had been examined (reason 2(b)). A response within two weeks, followed by a reply from the defendants, was therefore allowed, with the written procedure to close on 11 June 2025.

Key points for practice

• A procedural request that has been rejected may be repeated only where special circumstances are properly explained.
• Practical point: a further exchange after the rejoinder is confined to the genuinely new point, and its final admission may be left to the oral hearing.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 12.5, 36 and 333

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.