UPC-Court of First Instance: Procedural decision on a request for the amendment of a patent in dispute

Following the submission of the defendant’s reply, the plaintiff files a further brief containing a new subsidiary claim. The plaintiff justifies its additional subsidiary claims only in general terms, arguing that the defendant has taken an unexpected and nonsensical view of the previous subsidiary claims. However, this line of argument raises questions as to why further subsidiary claims are necessary if the defendant’s arguments are indeed so far-fetched. Furthermore, it remains unclear what new points the defendant has actually raised and how these relate to the amendments to the subsidiary claims. The plaintiff does not establish a concrete link between the amendments and the defendant’s arguments. The plaintiff’s request to allow subsequent requests to amend the patent is denied (LD Düsseldorf, 12.9.2025, CFI 733/2024 & 255/2025).