Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 3 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 3 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_466/2025, App_35609/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division extended by one week only, to 16 September 2025, the time limit for the statement of defence (and therefore for the counterclaim for revocation) of Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals, defendants to Dai Nippon Printing’s infringement action on European patent EP 3 805 415, they had asked for one month. The order shows how the division calibrates an extension by reference to the party’s diligence and the real usefulness of the pending analyses.

Question

Do ongoing laboratory analyses of the product material justify a one-month extension of the time limit for the defence, requested shortly before it expired?

Decision

In part. Extensions under Rule 9.3(a) remain exceptional and must be sought as soon as it becomes clear that the time limit cannot be met (paragraph 4). Given the late application, one week was granted (paragraph 5): the relevance of the material analysis to a revocation attack and to a prior user right was plausible, and the first laboratory’s timeline was credible (paragraphs 6 and 7). The remainder was refused: the defendants did not explain how the two analyses related, the second laboratory’s results were due within the extended period, and they did not show that they had tried to obtain interim results earlier (paragraphs 9 to 11). The timing of the claimant’s analysis before filing the action was irrelevant to equality of arms (paragraph 12).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party seeking an extension must act promptly and show what it did to speed up the expert work, otherwise the extension will be cut to what is strictly necessary.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 9.3(a) and Preamble, paragraph 4

Case law cited

Seoul Viosys v expert e-Commerce, Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 January 2024, ITCiCo v BMW, Paris Central Division, 9 February 2024, Xiaomi v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 30 September 2024, ILME v Phoenix Contact, Court of Appeal, 28 March 2025

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.