TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, ORD_35954/2025, 12 September 2025)

Date	12 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Registry reference	App_35497/2025 · ORD_35954/2025
Parties	TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 12 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_733/2024 and UPC_CFI_255/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division refused to admit the new auxiliary requests to amend EP 2 624 031 filed late by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik (Rule 30.2), together with the further pleading that accompanied them in the infringement action against IPG Laser (Rule 36). The order restates the need for a specific justification for any subsequent amendment.

Question

Can the proprietor introduce new auxiliary requests at the rejoinder stage of the counterclaim, on the ground that its opponent read its earlier requests in an unexpected way?

Decision

No. Leave under Rule 30.2 is discretionary and guided by proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity. Successive amendments that deprive the opponent of an early response and the court of proper consideration must be avoided (paragraphs 6 and 7). The applicant must explain why the new version is necessary and could not have been filed earlier (paragraph 8). TRUMPF’s justification remained general and linked the amendments to no specific argument of the defendant (paragraph 9). The Rule 36 request falls with it (paragraph 10).

Key points for practice

A late amendment request must link each change to a specific argument of the opponent, failing which it will be refused.
Asserting a « surprising » reading of earlier requests is not enough without concrete demonstration.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 30.1, 30.2 and 36
Case law cited: Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Paris Central Division, 27 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_255/2023), Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 27 June 2024

Related decisions

TRUMPF v IPG Laser, 12 September 2025, order of the same day on the admissibility of the reply (Rules 9.2 and 36).

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantTRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les nouvelles requêtes subsidiaires et l'écriture complémentaire sont écartées, faute de justification rattachant les modifications à des arguments précis de la défenderesse.
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 2 624 031 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, ORD_35948/2025, 12 September 2025) cited in this record
Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, 27 June 2024) cited in this record
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare v Flexicare (Group) (CFI, UPC_CFI_480/2025, 15 January 2026) cites this decision
Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 14 October 2025) cites this decision
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, 16 March 2026) cites this decision

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 624 031`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, 16 March 2026) · TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, ORD_35948/2025, 12 S · TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, 25 July 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.