Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 2 September 2026)
| Date | 2 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1034/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001034/2025 |
| Parties | Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semicond… |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 1 April 2026 : Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 1 April 2026) UPC_CFI_1034/2025 · UPC_CFI_931/2026
- 17 August 2026 : Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 17 August 2026) UPC-CFI-0001034/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By order of 2 September 2026 (UPC_CFI_1034/2025 and UPC_CFI_931/2026), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, on an application by Yangtze Memory Technologies in its infringement action on EP 3 909 047 against four Micron companies, referred to the panel, for decision at the latest after the oral hearing, the request to disregard new arguments in the rejoinder as late-filed, and allowed Yangtze Memory to respond in writing, by 17 September 2026, to the prior use argument based on the Z01M die. The order shows Rule 36 RoP being used to secure the right to be heard on points raised at the end of the written procedure.
Question
Must the judge-rapporteur rule at once on the admissibility of new arguments raised in a rejoinder and, pending that ruling, may he allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP?
Decision
The Rule 9.2 request calls for an in-depth analysis and was referred to the panel, which will decide at the latest after the oral hearing. The request to prevent reliance on those arguments at the hearing was bound to fail (paragraphs 15 and 16). As the arguments had not been disregarded at this stage, the Rule 36 request had to be decided (paragraph 17). Having regard to the right to be heard, fairness and efficiency, leave was granted as a precautionary measure, since the arguments first appeared in the rejoinder (paragraphs 18 to 20).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: faced with a new point in a rejoinder, apply both for it to be disregarded under Rule 9.2 RoP and, in the alternative, for leave to respond under Rule 36 RoP before the written procedure closes.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.2 and 36
- Case law cited
- ZTE v Samsung, Mannheim Local Division, 13 January 2026, Dai Nippon v Zapp, Düsseldorf Local Division, 28 April 2026, Oppo v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
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
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.
Parties
- claimantYangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMicron Technology, Inc.4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMicron Europe Ltd.2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMicron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantMicron Semicond2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 1 April 2026 Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 1 April 2026) Application RoP262A · UPC_CFI_1034/2025
L'estimation de bénéfice brut 2026 de Micron pour la France et l'Allemagne est protégée au titre de l'article 58 de l'Accord et des règles 262.2 et 262A, l'accès étant réservé aux représentants de Yangtze Memory et à quatre de ses salariés, sous astreinte en cas de violation.
- 17 August 2026 Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 17 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1034/2025
Saisie par Micron d'une demande de protection d'informations techniques sur la puce Z01M, produites au soutien d'un droit de possession antérieure, la division locale refuse l'accès réservé aux seuls avocats (§ 16 à 26). Seule la partie dont l'accès serait restreint peut renoncer au droit que lui confère la règle 262A.…
- 2 September 2026 Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 2 September 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1034/2025
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande d'écarter les arguments nouveaux de la duplique de Micron est renvoyée à la formation. Yangtze Memory est autorisée à répondre par écrit sur la possession antérieure avant le 17 septembre 2026.
- 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 3 909 047mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 17 August 2026) cited in this record
- Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 1 April 2026) cited in this record
- ZTE v Samsung Electronics (CFI, 13 January 2026) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 909 047 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 11 May 2026) · Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 1 April 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.