Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v. Topcon Corporation, UPC Court of Appeal, 28 April 2026, Case no. UPC_CoA_56/2026
On 28 April 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down an order in infringement proceedings between Optopol Technology Sp. Z.o.o. and Topcon Corporation. The order concerned an application for judgment in default filed by Optopol on the basis of Topcon’s failure to file its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim for revocation within the two-month period prescribed by R.29(a) RoP.
Topcon’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim was instead filed 7 days after the deadline, with no explanation or acknowledgement provided as to the missed deadline. Topcon filed an application for re-establishment of rights, which was refused by the Düsseldorf Local Division. Instead, the Local Division exercised its discretion under R.9.2 RoP to accept the late-filed documents for consideration at trial (effectively retroactively extending the deadline for filing).
The CoA ruled that Optopol’s request for discretionary review was admissible but would be denied on the basis that the LD’s decision followed the principles laid down in UPC_CoA37/2026 and was therefore not manifestly incorrect. The CoA noted that in exercising its discretion, the LD correctly considered that the extension would not cause any delay to the proceedings.
A copy of the order / decision can be found here.
