Can you make changes to your case before the UPC?

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is known for its strict procedures, but do recent developments indicate a shift? 

The frontloaded nature of proceedings before the UPC is a well-known fact. The UPC aims to deliver a first-instance judgment within a year of filing the complaint. This means that parties must present their case as early as possible. Any amendments to a case or changes in parties during proceedings are at the Court’s discretion, and the UPC tends to exercise this discretion restrictively.

AIM Sport v Supponor: A Case Study

In an order of February 11, 2025 (AIM Sport v Supponor), the Helsinki Local Division (LD) however, allowed the claimant to add a further defendant and to make several amendments to its case, including filing new claims regarding alleged infringing actions in two additional countries.

Does this signal a shift from the UPC’s restrictive approach towards case amendments? Probably not.

The leniency of the LD can be attributed to the circumstances of the case: The original complaint was filed in 2023. However, the case had not progressed much substantively as, following a preliminary objection from the defendants, the LD dismissed the action as inadmissible due to lack of competence of the UPC. This decision was set aside by the Court of Appeal in November, and the case was sent back to the LD.

At that point, the defendants had not filed a statement of defence due to the pending appeal proceedings. The LD considered that the case was basically starting afresh. Therefore, allowing the amendments and the change in parties did not conflict with the principle of frontloaded proceedings. The (old and new) defendants’ right to defence could be protected by granting them the full three months to lodge their statement of defence, starting from the date of the order allowing the claimant’s case amendments.

The LD also noted that denying the claimant’s requests to include the additional defendant and to introduce the amendments to the case would have forced the claimant to start new actions. Given the close relation of the already pending case, there was a significant likelihood that the cases would have been joined eventually. Thus, procedural efficiency also supported allowing the amendments.

Implications for Future Cases

This decision should not be seen as an indication that amending a case at the UPC will become easier in the future. The LD repeatedly emphasised that the frontloaded nature must be respected and the defendant’s right to defence must not be compromised. As a case progresses, it becomes increasingly unlikely that those conditions will be met. Therefore, claimants should still carefully prepare their case, select the defendants, and submit all relevant facts in the initial complaint.

Does this signal a shift from the UPC’s restrictive approach towards case amendments? Probably not.