Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments (CFI, 22 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 May 2025, the panel of the Mannheim Local Division dismissed Total Semiconductor’s application for review (Rule 333) of the judge rapporteur’s order of 1 April 2025, which had refused it leave to file a further written pleading in response to paragraphs 82 to 115 of the Texas Instruments companies’ rejoinder in the infringement action on EP 2 746 957 (UPC_CFI_132/2024). Leave to appeal was refused.

Question

Could the judge rapporteur reject, for lack of precision, a request for a further pleading under Rules 36 and 12.5?

Decision

Yes. The application was admissible but unfounded, and the panel exercised its discretion in the same way as the judge rapporteur. A request under Rules 36 and 12.5 must be substantiated enough for the judge rapporteur to identify the essential facts without studying the file, a general requirement that does not depend on any change of judge rapporteur. The Munich Central Division order of 24 January 2024, which does not set this formal standard, is not departed from. The Court was under no duty to warn the claimant of the deficiency, which the defendants had already raised. New arguments made at the review stage are irrelevant, review looking at the situation when the impugned order was made (section 1). No breach of a fundamental procedural right was found (section 2).

Key points for practice

• A request for a further pleading must identify the new points in the rejoinder precisely and explain why a response is needed.
• A Rule 333 review cannot be used to make up after the event for an insufficiently reasoned request.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 12.5, 36 and 333

Case law cited

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, Munich Central Division, 24 January 2024

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.