UPM-Kymmene v International N&H Denmark (CFI, 4 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_829/2024, ACT_67479/2024), the judge rapporteur of the Munich Central Division (Judge Kupecz) refused UPM-Kymmene, claimant in the revocation action against International N&H Denmark concerning EP 2 611 800, a further exchange of written pleadings after the rejoinder. The additional pleadings attached to the request are disregarded, as are the defendant’s unsolicited comments. The order is a reminder that Rule 36 RoP is exceptional.

Question

On what conditions may a party obtain, under Rule 36 RoP, a further round of written pleadings to respond to the rejoinder?

Decision

The request, made before the written procedure closed and reasoned, is admissible, although the judge regrets that it combines the pleadings with their justification. It is rejected on the merits: Rule 36 RoP allows a further exchange only exceptionally, essentially where due process so requires. UPM-Kymmene shows no threat to its procedural rights. The defendant normally has the last word in the rejoinder, the claimant can address the points at the oral hearing and no new facts or evidence are relied on. Convenience, brevity and the absence of any effect on the timetable are not enough. If the rejoinder goes beyond what Rule 52 RoP allows, Rule 9.2 RoP permits late material to be disregarded. The admissibility of a late novelty attack is left to the interim procedure or the oral hearing. The defendant’s comments, filed in breach of the preliminary order of 23 July 2025, are disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the answer to a rejoinder belongs at the oral hearing, a Rule 36 RoP request must identify a concrete threat to the right to be heard, not mere usefulness.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.2, 36, 43, 51, 52, 55, 102.2 and 333

Case law cited

OTEC v STEROS, Court of Appeal, 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_579/2025), Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_520/2024), Total Semiconductor v Texas Instruments, Mannheim Local Division, 1 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_132/2024).

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.