UPC Central Division: Late-filed Evidence

According to R 171 and 172 RoP, a party that relies on a fact that is disputed or could be disputed by the other side must specify the evidence. This means that every party filing a claim must compile the documents required to support its request in advance. The procedure before the UPC is a so-called "front-loaded" procedure, in which the written procedure allows the parties to build on a stable and comprehensive factual and evidentiary basis with a reply and rejoinder, which should already be established when the claim is filed. Article 76 UPCA only allows for the admission of new evidence in the appeal proceedings if it could not reasonably have been expected during the proceedings before the first instance. The same principle can also be applied before the court of first instance. It follows from this: anyone who files a claim before this court must already possess and be able to submit the evidence that supports their assertions. The late submission of the state of the art or only in the context of the reply to the defence to the counterclaim for invalidity prevents the other side from being able to provide a complete statement (defence and rejoinder) on a decisive legal point. This contradicts the principle of the right to be heard of both parties. The submission of a document at a later time is only justified if the party proves that the document was not previously available or could not have been submitted earlier. The submission of new documents is subject to the general principle of diligence and good faith, also because it affects the duration of the proceedings. In the present case, it is undisputed that this document could have been submitted earlier, and it is therefore not admitted into the proceedings (ZK Mailand 11. 4. 2025, CFI 597/2024).