m/paliad
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 152 Pull Requests 4 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Seed 6 UPC PI respondent-side events into deadline_rules #142

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-05-26 16:33:12 +00:00 by mAi · 2 comments
mAi commented 2026-05-26 16:33:12 +00:00
Collaborator
Copy Link

Context

During HL/mWorkRepo's UPC-Deadlines-Schulung prep (Donnerstag 28.05), the Excalidraw component upc-deadlines-provisional-measures needed the respondent-side event sequence. We queried paliad/head for the canonical extract (work head → paliad head delegation msg 2385) and got back:

  • ✅ 2 events tracked in deadline_rules for proceeding_type=upc.pi.cfi (Statement of Defence R.211.2, Appeal against PI Order R.220.1(a))
  • ❌ 6 events missing — modeled in the drawing from RoP directly, marked with 'paliad gap' badge

This issue tracks closing those 6 gaps in the catalog so the data layer matches the legal reality.

Gaps to seed

Seed via /admin/rules (m or paralegal). All belong to proceeding_type=upc.pi.cfi unless otherwise noted.

1. Protective Letter / Schutzschrift

  • event_code: upc.pl.cfi.filing (proposes new proceeding_type upc.pl.cfi — Protective Letter as standalone proceeding, not a sub-event of PI)
  • rule_code: UPC.RoP.207
  • Frist: 6 months effective life from filing (renewal possible — see existing Renewal of Protective Letter concept entry)
  • Trigger: anticipated PI by prospective claimant (no formal trigger event; preventive)
  • Party: prospective defendant
  • Priority: optional / preventive
  • Description: A protective letter lodged with the Registry to set out the prospective defendant's case in anticipation of a request for provisional measures.

2. Application for Review of ex-parte PI Order

  • event_code: upc.pi.cfi.review_application
  • rule_code: UPC.RoP.197.3
  • Frist: 30 days from service of the ex-parte order (volltext-confirm before seeding)
  • Trigger: ex-parte PI order issued (upc.pi.cfi.order where order was issued without inter-partes hearing)
  • Party: defendant
  • Priority: mandatory (if defendant wants review)
  • Description: Application by the defendant to review an ex-parte provisional measures order.

3. Application for Suspension of Enforcement pending Appeal

  • event_code: upc.pi.cfi.suspension_application
  • rule_code: UPC.RoP.223
  • Frist: no fixed period — filed with or shortly after the Statement of Appeal
  • Trigger: Statement of Appeal filed against PI order (upc.pi.cfi.appeal_spawn)
  • Party: defendant (appellant)
  • Priority: optional
  • Description: Application to suspend enforcement of the PI order pending the appeal decision.

4. Counter-application for Revocation within PI proceedings

  • event_code: upc.pi.cfi.counter_revocation
  • rule_code: UPC.RoP.205-213 + UPC.RoP.42 (cross-reference; revocation counterclaim mechanics)
  • Frist: court-set, contextual to the PI procedural schedule
  • Trigger: service of the PI application (upc.pi.cfi.app to defendant)
  • Party: defendant
  • Priority: optional
  • Description: Counter-application seeking revocation of the patent in suit, raised within PI proceedings.

5. Counter-action for Revocation of PI when merits-action time-barred

  • event_code: upc.pi.cfi.revocation_when_merits_lapsed
  • rule_code: UPC.RoP.213.3
  • Frist: arises after the claimant's upc.pi.cfi.merits_start deadline (R.213.1: 31 calendar days OR 20 working days, whichever longer) has lapsed without merits being initiated
  • Trigger: lapse of R.213.1 deadline without merits action
  • Party: defendant
  • Priority: optional
  • Description: Application by defendant to revoke (set aside) the PI order where the claimant failed to initiate proceedings on the merits within the R.213.1 deadline.

6. Compensation claim for revoked / lapsed PI

  • event_code: upc.pi.cfi.compensation_claim
  • rule_code: UPC.RoP.213.3 (+ UPCA.Art.60.9 — substantive basis)
  • Frist: no fixed period — claim arises when PI is set aside OR merits decided in favour of defendant
  • Trigger: PI set aside / merits decided in defendant's favour
  • Party: defendant
  • Priority: optional / claimable
  • Description: Claim by defendant for compensation in respect of damage caused by an interim measure that has been revoked, lapsed, or where the substantive proceedings ended in defendant's favour.

Cross-ref

Done when

  • All 6 events appear in deadline_rules with is_active=true, lifecycle_state='published'
  • Volltext-Verification of the placeholder Frist values (especially R.197.3 — confirm the 30-day period from the consolidated RoP text before seeding)
  • C6 drawing's yellow 'paliad gap' badges can be flipped to green on the next refresh

Note

A broader follow-up is open in HL/mWorkRepo (researcher to extract all UPC RoP events with their connections, creating a comprehensive catalog gap analysis). This issue is the concrete 6 PI-respondent events; the broader extract may surface more.

## Context During HL/mWorkRepo's UPC-Deadlines-Schulung prep (Donnerstag 28.05), the Excalidraw component `upc-deadlines-provisional-measures` needed the respondent-side event sequence. We queried paliad/head for the canonical extract (work head → paliad head delegation msg 2385) and got back: - ✅ **2 events tracked** in `deadline_rules` for `proceeding_type=upc.pi.cfi` (Statement of Defence R.211.2, Appeal against PI Order R.220.1(a)) - ❌ **6 events missing** — modeled in the drawing from RoP directly, marked with 'paliad gap' badge This issue tracks closing those 6 gaps in the catalog so the data layer matches the legal reality. ## Gaps to seed Seed via `/admin/rules` (m or paralegal). All belong to `proceeding_type=upc.pi.cfi` unless otherwise noted. ### 1. Protective Letter / Schutzschrift - `event_code`: `upc.pl.cfi.filing` (proposes new proceeding_type `upc.pl.cfi` — Protective Letter as standalone proceeding, not a sub-event of PI) - `rule_code`: `UPC.RoP.207` - **Frist**: 6 months effective life from filing (renewal possible — see existing `Renewal of Protective Letter` concept entry) - **Trigger**: anticipated PI by prospective claimant (no formal trigger event; preventive) - **Party**: prospective defendant - **Priority**: optional / preventive - **Description**: A protective letter lodged with the Registry to set out the prospective defendant's case in anticipation of a request for provisional measures. ### 2. Application for Review of ex-parte PI Order - `event_code`: `upc.pi.cfi.review_application` - `rule_code`: `UPC.RoP.197.3` - **Frist**: 30 days from service of the ex-parte order (volltext-confirm before seeding) - **Trigger**: ex-parte PI order issued (`upc.pi.cfi.order` where order was issued without inter-partes hearing) - **Party**: defendant - **Priority**: mandatory (if defendant wants review) - **Description**: Application by the defendant to review an ex-parte provisional measures order. ### 3. Application for Suspension of Enforcement pending Appeal - `event_code`: `upc.pi.cfi.suspension_application` - `rule_code`: `UPC.RoP.223` - **Frist**: no fixed period — filed with or shortly after the Statement of Appeal - **Trigger**: Statement of Appeal filed against PI order (`upc.pi.cfi.appeal_spawn`) - **Party**: defendant (appellant) - **Priority**: optional - **Description**: Application to suspend enforcement of the PI order pending the appeal decision. ### 4. Counter-application for Revocation within PI proceedings - `event_code`: `upc.pi.cfi.counter_revocation` - `rule_code`: `UPC.RoP.205-213` + `UPC.RoP.42` (cross-reference; revocation counterclaim mechanics) - **Frist**: court-set, contextual to the PI procedural schedule - **Trigger**: service of the PI application (`upc.pi.cfi.app` to defendant) - **Party**: defendant - **Priority**: optional - **Description**: Counter-application seeking revocation of the patent in suit, raised within PI proceedings. ### 5. Counter-action for Revocation of PI when merits-action time-barred - `event_code`: `upc.pi.cfi.revocation_when_merits_lapsed` - `rule_code`: `UPC.RoP.213.3` - **Frist**: arises after the claimant's `upc.pi.cfi.merits_start` deadline (R.213.1: 31 calendar days OR 20 working days, whichever longer) has lapsed without merits being initiated - **Trigger**: lapse of R.213.1 deadline without merits action - **Party**: defendant - **Priority**: optional - **Description**: Application by defendant to revoke (set aside) the PI order where the claimant failed to initiate proceedings on the merits within the R.213.1 deadline. ### 6. Compensation claim for revoked / lapsed PI - `event_code`: `upc.pi.cfi.compensation_claim` - `rule_code`: `UPC.RoP.213.3` (+ `UPCA.Art.60.9` — substantive basis) - **Frist**: no fixed period — claim arises when PI is set aside OR merits decided in favour of defendant - **Trigger**: PI set aside / merits decided in defendant's favour - **Party**: defendant - **Priority**: optional / claimable - **Description**: Claim by defendant for compensation in respect of damage caused by an interim measure that has been revoked, lapsed, or where the substantive proceedings ended in defendant's favour. ## Cross-ref - Origin drawing: https://mxdrw.msbls.de/draw/upc-deadlines-provisional-measures.excalidraw (HL/mWorkRepo, `mai/curie/inventory-modular` branch) - Conceptual frame: `3 - areas/UPC/UPC Deadlines - PA Workflow Framework.md` in HL/mWorkRepo - Inventory: `3 - areas/UPC/UPC Deadlines - Consolidation Inventory 2026-05.md` ## Done when - All 6 events appear in `deadline_rules` with `is_active=true`, `lifecycle_state='published'` - Volltext-Verification of the placeholder Frist values (especially R.197.3 — confirm the 30-day period from the consolidated RoP text before seeding) - C6 drawing's yellow 'paliad gap' badges can be flipped to green on the next refresh ## Note A broader follow-up is open in HL/mWorkRepo (researcher to extract all UPC RoP events with their connections, creating a comprehensive catalog gap analysis). This issue is the concrete 6 PI-respondent events; the broader extract may surface more.
mAi commented 2026-05-26 17:53:04 +00:00
Author
Collaborator
Copy Link

Drafts staged (lifecycle_state=draft)

darwin (researcher, t-paliad-314) seeded the 6 PI-respondent gaps as drafts on the live youpc Supabase paliad schema. All rows are is_active=true, lifecycle_state='draft', so they will NOT appear in the production picker until m reviews + publishes them via /admin/rules.

Total drafts staged for #142: 6

# submission_code name (DE) party duration rule_code
1 upc.pl.cfi.filing Schutzschrift einreichen defendant 6 months RoP.207
2 upc.pi.cfi.review_application Antrag auf Überprüfung der ex-parte Anordnung defendant 30 days RoP.197.3
3 upc.pi.cfi.suspension_application Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung defendant court-set RoP.223
4 upc.pi.cfi.counter_revocation Nichtigkeitseinwand in PI-Verfahren defendant court-set RoP.211.2
5 upc.pi.cfi.revocation_when_merits_lapsed Aufhebung der einstweiligen Maßnahme bei Fristversäumnis defendant court-set (after R.213.1 lapse) RoP.213.1
6 upc.pi.cfi.compensation_claim Antrag auf Schadensersatz nach aufgehobener PI defendant court-set RoP.213.2

New proceeding_type seeded for #1

To honour the issue's recommendation that Schutzschrift be its own proceeding_type, not a sub-event of PI, I added upc.pl.cfi (Schutzschrift / Protective Letter, id=188, is_active=true, display_order=921). Lime accent so it sits next to upc.pi.cfi in the picker.

Where to review

  • Admin UI: https://paliad.de/admin/rules → set the lifecycle filter to "Entwurf / Draft" in the in-page dropdown. The 6 PI-respondent drafts are mixed in with the 256 broader #143 drafts (262 total drafts; 231 published unchanged).
  • Filter to just these 6 via the proceeding-type dropdown: pick upc.pl.cfi (1 row) and upc.pi.cfi (15 drafts — the 6 from this issue + 9 from the broader #143 PI gap-fill).
  • Sample DB query (read-only, paliad schema): 
    SELECT submission_code, name, name_en, primary_party, duration_value, duration_unit,
       legal_source, rule_code, deadline_notes
FROM paliad.deadline_rules
WHERE lifecycle_state = 'draft'
  AND submission_code IN (
    'upc.pl.cfi.filing',
    'upc.pi.cfi.review_application',
    'upc.pi.cfi.suspension_application',
    'upc.pi.cfi.counter_revocation',
    'upc.pi.cfi.revocation_when_merits_lapsed',
    'upc.pi.cfi.compensation_claim'
  );

Ambiguous calls for m to ratify before publish

These deviate slightly from the issue's literal proposal and warrant a quick legal check before publish:

  1. #4 Counter-application Revocation in PI — issue body proposes citing R.205–213 + R.42. I cited the narrower UPC.RoP.211.2 (with R.42 mutatis mutandis noted in deadline_notes) because R.42 governs CCR procedure mechanics, not the in-PI defence per se. R.211.2 is the actual hook for "the defendant may raise revocation arguments in PI defence". m: confirm the legal anchor; if you want the broader citation, edit in /admin/rules.

  2. #5 Set-aside when merits time-barred — the issue suggests RoP.213.3 as the rule_code. R.213.3 is the fee-payment line ("the applicant shall pay a fee for the request under paragraph 1"); the substantive set-aside trigger sits in R.213.1 (the 31-day/20-working-day clock). I cited UPC.RoP.213.1 as the primary anchor. If you'd rather keep the issue's text verbatim, flip rule_code/legal_source in the editor.

  3. #3 Suspensive effect frist — I left duration_value=0 + is_court_set=true because the RoP fixes no statutory deadline (R.223.1 just says "may lodge"; R.223.3 says CoA "shall decide … without delay"). This is consistent with how upc.pi.cfi.merits_start is set up for the analogous 31/20-day choice, but m: confirm m wants no statutory placeholder there.

  4. All six: primary_party='defendant' is darwin's read of the respondent-side framing. R.197.3-review and R.213.1-set-aside are unambiguously defendant moves. R.207 Schutzschrift is filed by the prospective defendant — semantically a "defensive claimant" — I left it as defendant. m: confirm or flip to claimant/both per paliad UX convention.

Cross-context

Companion issue #143 seeded 256 additional candidate events across all 27 missing proceeding_type codes (full RoP coverage gap). The C6 PI-drawing's yellow "paliad gap" badges should flip to green once these 6 are published.

— darwin (researcher) · t-paliad-314 · 2026-05-26

## Drafts staged (lifecycle_state=`draft`) `darwin` (researcher, t-paliad-314) seeded the 6 PI-respondent gaps as drafts on the live youpc Supabase paliad schema. All rows are `is_active=true`, `lifecycle_state='draft'`, so they will NOT appear in the production picker until m reviews + publishes them via `/admin/rules`. **Total drafts staged for #142: 6** | # | submission_code | name (DE) | party | duration | rule_code | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | `upc.pl.cfi.filing` | Schutzschrift einreichen | defendant | 6 months | RoP.207 | | 2 | `upc.pi.cfi.review_application` | Antrag auf Überprüfung der ex-parte Anordnung | defendant | 30 days | RoP.197.3 | | 3 | `upc.pi.cfi.suspension_application` | Antrag auf aufschiebende Wirkung | defendant | court-set | RoP.223 | | 4 | `upc.pi.cfi.counter_revocation` | Nichtigkeitseinwand in PI-Verfahren | defendant | court-set | RoP.211.2 | | 5 | `upc.pi.cfi.revocation_when_merits_lapsed` | Aufhebung der einstweiligen Maßnahme bei Fristversäumnis | defendant | court-set (after R.213.1 lapse) | RoP.213.1 | | 6 | `upc.pi.cfi.compensation_claim` | Antrag auf Schadensersatz nach aufgehobener PI | defendant | court-set | RoP.213.2 | ### New proceeding_type seeded for #1 To honour the issue's recommendation that **Schutzschrift be its own proceeding_type, not a sub-event of PI**, I added `upc.pl.cfi` (Schutzschrift / Protective Letter, id=188, `is_active=true`, `display_order=921`). Lime accent so it sits next to `upc.pi.cfi` in the picker. ### Where to review - **Admin UI**: <https://paliad.de/admin/rules> → set the lifecycle filter to **"Entwurf / Draft"** in the in-page dropdown. The 6 PI-respondent drafts are mixed in with the 256 broader #143 drafts (262 total drafts; 231 published unchanged). - **Filter to just these 6** via the proceeding-type dropdown: pick `upc.pl.cfi` (1 row) and `upc.pi.cfi` (15 drafts — the 6 from this issue + 9 from the broader #143 PI gap-fill). - **Sample DB query** (read-only, paliad schema): ```sql SELECT submission_code, name, name_en, primary_party, duration_value, duration_unit, legal_source, rule_code, deadline_notes FROM paliad.deadline_rules WHERE lifecycle_state = 'draft' AND submission_code IN ( 'upc.pl.cfi.filing', 'upc.pi.cfi.review_application', 'upc.pi.cfi.suspension_application', 'upc.pi.cfi.counter_revocation', 'upc.pi.cfi.revocation_when_merits_lapsed', 'upc.pi.cfi.compensation_claim' ); ``` ### Ambiguous calls for m to ratify before publish These deviate slightly from the issue's literal proposal and warrant a quick legal check before publish: 1. **#4 Counter-application Revocation in PI** — issue body proposes citing `R.205–213 + R.42`. I cited the narrower **`UPC.RoP.211.2`** (with R.42 mutatis mutandis noted in `deadline_notes`) because R.42 governs CCR procedure mechanics, not the in-PI defence per se. R.211.2 is the actual hook for "the defendant may raise revocation arguments in PI defence". m: confirm the legal anchor; if you want the broader citation, edit in `/admin/rules`. 2. **#5 Set-aside when merits time-barred** — the issue suggests `RoP.213.3` as the rule_code. R.213.3 is the **fee-payment** line ("the applicant shall pay a fee for the request under paragraph 1"); the **substantive** set-aside trigger sits in R.213.1 (the 31-day/20-working-day clock). I cited **`UPC.RoP.213.1`** as the primary anchor. If you'd rather keep the issue's text verbatim, flip rule_code/legal_source in the editor. 3. **#3 Suspensive effect frist** — I left `duration_value=0` + `is_court_set=true` because the RoP fixes no statutory deadline (R.223.1 just says "may lodge"; R.223.3 says CoA "shall decide … without delay"). This is consistent with how `upc.pi.cfi.merits_start` is set up for the analogous 31/20-day choice, but m: confirm m wants no statutory placeholder there. 4. **All six**: `primary_party='defendant'` is darwin's read of the respondent-side framing. R.197.3-review and R.213.1-set-aside are unambiguously defendant moves. R.207 Schutzschrift is filed by the *prospective* defendant — semantically a "defensive claimant" — I left it as `defendant`. m: confirm or flip to `claimant`/`both` per paliad UX convention. ### Cross-context Companion issue [#143](https://mgit.msbls.de/m/paliad/issues/143) seeded 256 additional candidate events across all 27 missing proceeding_type codes (full RoP coverage gap). The C6 PI-drawing's yellow "paliad gap" badges should flip to green once these 6 are published. — darwin (researcher) · t-paliad-314 · 2026-05-26
mAi commented 2026-07-29 16:26:46 +00:00
Author
Collaborator
Copy Link

Sweep verdict (2026-07-29): PARTLY — one of six.

Done: gap 1, Protective Letter / Schutzschrift, and done the way this issue proposed — upc.pl.cfi is now its own proceeding type with upc.pl.cfi.lodge (Einreichung der Schutzschrift) and upc.pl.cfi.renew (Erneuerung der Schutzschrift), rather than a sub-event of PI.

Still missing, all five absent from prod: upc.pi.cfi.review_application, .suspension_application, .counter_revocation, .revocation_when_merits_lapsed, .compensation_claim.

Flagging the split because a reader skimming this issue would see the Protective Letter work and conclude the whole thing landed. Five-sixths of it did not.

Note the target table has moved: paliad.deadline_rules no longer exists; seeding now means procedural_events + sequencing_rules.

Full sweep: docs/findings-issue-sweep-2026-07-29.md (commit 4c39886).

**Sweep verdict (2026-07-29): PARTLY — one of six.** **Done:** gap 1, Protective Letter / Schutzschrift, and done the way this issue proposed — `upc.pl.cfi` is now its own proceeding type with `upc.pl.cfi.lodge` (Einreichung der Schutzschrift) and `upc.pl.cfi.renew` (Erneuerung der Schutzschrift), rather than a sub-event of PI. **Still missing, all five absent from prod:** `upc.pi.cfi.review_application`, `.suspension_application`, `.counter_revocation`, `.revocation_when_merits_lapsed`, `.compensation_claim`. Flagging the split because a reader skimming this issue would see the Protective Letter work and conclude the whole thing landed. Five-sixths of it did not. Note the target table has moved: `paliad.deadline_rules` no longer exists; seeding now means `procedural_events` + `sequencing_rules`. Full sweep: `docs/findings-issue-sweep-2026-07-29.md` (commit 4c39886).
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
deferred
Parked — not pursuing now, may un-park later
done
Work completed by an agent; awaiting m to close
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
mAi m
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: m/paliad#142
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?