The Hague - Local Division
UPC_CFI_327/2024
Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 06/08/2024
Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided
Orbisk B.V.
(Defendant)
-
Kanaalweg
29 A - 3526
KM -
Utrecht -
NL
Statement
of claim
served on
27/06/2024

REFERENCE CODE ECLI: Not provided

APPLICANT/S
1) Orbisk B.V.
(Applicant) - Kanaalweg 29 A - 3526 KM -
Utrecht - NL
Represented by Michiel
De Baat

RESPONDENT/S
2

RELEVANT PROCEEDING PARTIES
1) Winnow Solutions Limited
(Main proceeding party - Claimant) - 100
Avebury Boulevard - MK9 1FH - Milton
Keynes - GB
Represented by Gregory Bacon
P
ATENT AT ISSUE
Patent no. Proprietor/s
EP3198245 Winnow Solutions Limited
No SPC details provided
Patent no. SPC details

DECIDING JUDGE
Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Infringement action. R. 190 RoP application.

STATEMENT OF THE FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES
On 30 July 2024, the judge-rapporteur (“JR”) by Preliminary Order granted respondent Orbisk B.V. (“Orbisk”) a three-week term to respond to the R190 Request, which will expire on 20 August 2024. For reasons outlined in its request, Orbisk requests the Court to extend the term granted in the Preliminary Order and to allow Orbisk to respond to Winnow’s R190 Request together with its Statement of defence (27 September 2024).

SUMMARY OF FACTS
On 18 June 2024, Winnow Solutions Ltd. (“Winnow”) filed its Statement of Claim, alleging infringement of EP 3 198 245 B1, together with a ‘Request for order to produce evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP’ (the “R. 190 request”). After service of the SoC on 27 June 2024, the Statement of Defence (“SoD”) in the main proceedings is currently due on 27 September 2024.

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER
Winnow does not object to an extension for Orbisk’s reply to 30 August 2024. The JR will grant an extension of an extra week on top of that, so to 6 September 2024. The reason for this extension is based solely on the summer holiday period. The extra week is granted to give a few days extra after the summer holidays have ended. The JR agrees with Winnow that speed for handling the R. 190 request is necessary for it to use any information obtained (if granted) in its reply to the SoD. After all, the JR will still need some time to decide on the R. 190 request and, if granted, confidentiality issues may need to be addressed. The JR also agrees
with Winnow that Orbisk was in the possession of this R. 190 request already since 27 June 2024, so that it effectively has had much longer time to respond to it than the three weeks granted in the 30 July 2024 Preliminary Order. The JR does not agree with Orbisk that its reply should coincide with the SoD. It may be true that certain arguments regarding invalidity or non-infringement from the main proceedings may also be brought forward against the R. 190 request. That does not mean however that the SoD and the reply sto the R. 190 request should (necessarily) be filed on the same date. Without merit is finally Orbisk’s assumption
that absent an (earlier) Preliminary Order by the JR, it could reasonably have assumed that the deadline to reply would coincide with the SoD.

ORDER
The JR will grant an extension for Orbisk to file its reply to the R. 190 RoP request until 6
September 2024.

ORDER DETAILS
Order no. ORD_45347/2024 in ACTION NUMBER: ACT_36388/2024
UPC number: UPC_CFI_327/2024
Action type: Infringement Action
Related proceeding no. Application No.: 44803/2024
Application Type: Generic procedural Application
Edger
Frank
BRINKMAN
Digitally signed by
Edger Frank
BRINKMAN
Date: 2024.08.06
00:52:35 +02'00'