(1) In proceedings for the revocation of a patent or of invalidity of a supplementary protection certificate the Federal Patent Court indicates to the parties as early as possible those aspects which will presumably be of particular significance in respect of the decisions or which are helpful for concentrating the oral proceedings upon the issues which are essential for the decision. Such indication is, as a rule, to be made within six months following service of the action. Where patent litigation is pending, the indication is, as a rule, also to be made ex officio to the other court. The Federal Patent Court may, in preparation for the indication to be made in accordance with sentence 1, set the parties a time limit for final written submissions. If the Federal Patent Court does not set a time limit, the indication may not be made before the expiry of the time limit under section 82 (3) sentences 2 and 3. The Federal Patent Court is not bound to take into consideration any submissions made by the parties which are received following expiry of the time limit. No indication as required by sentence 1 need be made if the aspects to be discussed appear self-evident on the basis of the parties’ pleadings. Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in addition.
(2) The Federal Patent Court may set a time limit within which the parties may submit final comments on the indication made in accordance with subsection (1) by making relevant requests or additions to their pleadings and also in all other respects. The time limit may be extended if the party affected submits substantial grounds therefor. These must be substantiated.
(3) The competence under subsections (1) and (2) may also be exercised by the presiding judge or by a member of the Board of Appeal to be determined by him or her.
(4) The Federal Patent Court may reject means of challenge or defence introduced by a party or a change to the action or a defence brought forward by the defendant by means of an amended version of the patent which are brought forward only after the expiry of a time limit set for this under subsection (2) and may decide without further examination if
1. giving consideration to the new submission would necessitate postponing the scheduled oral proceedings, and
2. the party affected does not sufficiently excuse the delay, and
3. the party affected has been instructed about the consequences of failing to observe a time limit.
The excuse must be substantiated.