Case management order. The following information and questions have been sent to the parties by the judge-rapporteur in order to structure the further proceedings (Article 43 UPCA, Rule 9(1) RoP, Rule 101(1) RoP).
In case of technically complex subject-matter statements on the interpretation of features of the asserted patent claim which are not readily understandable by themselves must already be made in the statement of claim (Rule 13(1)(n) RoP). Here: Location of reference signals for determining the uplink channel quality in an available transmission bandwidth to avoid interference with control channels in the context of LTE standardisation.
In the Defence to the counterclaim for revocation, the patent proprietor must base his argumentation on specific features of the patent claim (Rule 29A RoP). The plaintiff's statements in the reply to the counterclaim are not clearly recognisable in relation to the individual features - this must be made up for. It is insufficient to deal with the defendant's arguments without a clear reference to the features of the asserted claim, without it being clearly recognisable why a specific feature of the claim is not covered by the prior art disclosure.
Rule 30(2) RoP is a strict rule of preclusion which allows subsequent requests for amendment of the patent only with the permission of the court. Corresponding requests must be substantiated in detail. When assessing whether a new amendment is permitted, it will be important to consider whether the new amendment would have been necessary at an earlier stage in response to the invalidity plaintiff's arguments and whether the late request for amendment causes delays in the proceedings.
Defendants will have to clarify what the current version of the FRAND counterclaim (seeking a FRAND licence rate determination and/or a declaratory judgemen) is aimed at.
