Court of Appeal again rejects request for further written pleadings in appeal proceedings

Court of Appeal again rejects request for further written pleadings in appeal proceedings

Hurom v NUC Electronics – Court of Appeal, 4 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_678/2025)

Introduction

After its order in Sibio v Abbott, the Court of Appeal again refused a request for additional written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. In the present case, the request was made by Hurom in an appeal concerning EP 3 155 936 following the revocation of several national parts of the patent by the Paris Local Division.

The Court confirmed once more that the written phase of appeal proceedings before the UPC is intentionally limited.

Written phase of UPC appeal proceedings is “strictly” limited

Hurom had filed two new auxiliary requests together with its statement of grounds of appeal. In response, NUC argued that these requests were inadmissible and, in the alternative, lacked inventive step based on two newly cited prior-art documents.

Hurom sought leave to file an additional written submission to address these arguments.

The Court rejected the request. It recalled that, under the Rules of Procedure, the written phase of appeal proceedings normally consists only of the statement of grounds of appeal and the statement of response. Additional exchanges of written pleadings are not envisaged unless specific situations arise, such as a cross-appeal.

Although Rule 36 RoP allows the Court to permit further submissions where required by principles of fairness or the right to be heard, the Court held that such circumstances were not present here.

Respondent’s arguments considered a legitimate defence

The Court noted that NUC’s arguments on the inadmissibility of the new auxiliary requests merely constituted a defense to requests first introduced by Hurom on appeal. Likewise, the inventive-step arguments based on new prior-art documents were raised in response to those newly filed requests and therefore could not have been submitted earlier.

Hurom also waited approximately two months after the statement of response before requesting a further written round, despite having been informed that the case was expected to be ready for oral hearing after that response.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the parties could adequately address their remaining arguments at the oral hearing and that the efficient conduct of proceedings required rejection of the request.

Takeaways

• The written phase of UPC appeal proceedings is deliberately limited to one round per party (grounds of appeal and response).
• Additional written submissions under Rule 36 RoP remain exceptional and require concrete due-process concerns.
• Arguments responding to auxiliary requests first introduced on appeal do not normally justify a further written round.
• Perhaps not decisive in this case, but parties seeking an additional written submission under Rule 36 RoP should request it promptly after receiving the other party’s pleading, as the lateness of the present request (two months after receipt of the pleading) was criticized by the Court of Appeal.

To the decision   To the Blog Overview