Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Flexicare (Group) Limited, Order UPC CFI, Milan Central Division, 15 January 2026, Case no. UPC_CFI_480/2025
Request to allow auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings is rejected.
“The explanation for the newly introduced auxiliary requests given in the rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation and reply to the defence to the application to amend the patent of 31 October, 2025, that these auxiliary requests were introduced as a precaution and in direct response to the new objections of lack of clarity raised in the claimants reply, is no basis to allow the subsequent auxiliary requests into the proceedings.
“As addressed above, subsequent auxiliary requests shall only be allowed into the proceedings on an exceptional basis. While it is true that the clarity objection to which the defendant reacted with the subsequent auxiliary requests were only submitted in the claimant’s reply, the defendant should have and could have foreseen the claimant’s clarity objection. Clarity is one aspect that specifically needs to be addressed in an application to amend the patent, as pointed out above, especially with regard to amendments based on the description, not on dependent claims. As the claimant points out in the rejoinder to the reply to the defence to the application to amend the patent (margin 31), the EPO’s Guidelines for Examination (F.IV.4.14.1) specifically deal with the clarity of the wording of claims directed to one entity or a combination of entities.
The entire Order can be read here.
