Case Law
Rule 356: Application to set aside a decision by default

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 09/01/2025, ITCiCo Spain S.L. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaf (Case/ Registry number: App_56176/2024, ORD_58414/2024)
Example of decision on interpretation requiring justification of a party’s default: "Although Rule 356 ‘RoP’ does not expressly state that the applicant must demonstrate that the default is not determined by its own fault, that is, that it was unable to comply with peremptory time limits or to appear at an oral hearing at which it is was duly summoned (except as provided for in Rule 116 and 117 ‘RoP’) due to reasons beyond its control, such a requirement is inherent in the provision that obliges the applicant to explain the reason for the default and, more generally, in the Unified Patent Court system.
9. Indeed, it is observed that the rationale of Rule 356 ‘RoP’ is to allow the party against whom a decision by default has been issued to argue before the Court who delivered the decision that the right of defence was violated due to the erroneous finding of the lapse of time or of the correctness of the summon at the oral hearing, and, in this way, to remedy such an error, "reopening" the proceedings and allowing the party to fully exercise its violated right of defence. (…) It follows that the requirements for setting aside a decision by default include the evidence that the default was not due to the party’s fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure."