Revocation Actions at the UPC: State Your Defense or Risk Losing Your Patent

January 16, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) aims to provide expeditious decisions for its litigants. That means that there is a higher bar for obtaining extensions of time. As exemplified in BMW v. ITCiCo, the UPC’s reluctance to grant extensions can have serious consequences, including revocation of the patent.

The UPC opened its doors in June 2023 to provide an efficient and patent-knowledgeable forum for adjudicating European patent disputes. Shortly after, claimant BMW brought an action against defendant ITCiCo seeking to revoke a patent directed to warning signals based on a vehicle’s speed. Under UPC procedures, within two months of being served, defendant was required to file a “statement of defense” that lays out its evidence and legal arguments for why the revocation action should fail.

Defendant did not file its statement of defense. Instead, on the last day of the two-month filing period, defendant requested an extension of time. Defendant first argued that an extension was appropriate because, although it received a statement of claim from claimant, it did not receive the accompanying exhibits, so it believed the letters were only a courtesy and not formal service. Second, defendant argued it was having difficulties logging onto the Case Management System with its smart card verification device. Third, defendant argued its primary European patent counsel had fallen ill, and it had to find alternate counsel.

The court rejected all three of defendant’s arguments. According to Rule 9 of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure, “the power to extend the time limit should only be used . . . in justified exceptional cases,” including where “a party has an objective difficulty” in preparing its answer. The court found that defendant’s circumstances were not an exceptional case.

Regarding defendant’s first argument, the court explained that serving a statement of claim can still be valid without the accompanying exhibits so long as it “enables the defendant to assert its rights in legal proceedings before the Court.” This was true here, as the statement of claim “state[d] with certainty the subject matter and the cause of action.” The court then faulted defendant for failing to provide relevant or sufficient evidence of either its Case Management System difficulties or its need to obtain alternate counsel. Moreover, as to the technical difficulties, defendant was “expected to seek a solution in an appropriate time and act accordingly.” Finally, the timing of defendant’s request mattered: seeking an extension on the last day of the time period does not comply with “the principles of fairness that must guide the procedural activities of the parties.” Thus, the court denied defendant’s extension request.

As defendant did not file a statement of defense, claimant subsequently moved for a default decision and revocation, which the court granted. The court found “the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought” and that claimant “is entitled to a speedy procedure without delay.” The patent at issue was therefore revoked in its entirety, due to a lack of novelty or inventive step in view of the prior art.

Practice Tip: Litigants in the UPC should not count on obtaining extensions of time as a matter of course, and must be aware of the potentially severe consequences of missing the deadline to file a statement of defense. Further, litigants should seek extensions as early as possible during their window to respond, and provide objective reasons, along with evidence, as to why a timely response is not possible.

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaf v. ITCiCo Spain S.L., Paris (FR) Central Division, UPC Court of First Instance, Case No. UPC_CFI_412/2023.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.