LD Munich, July 7, 2026, Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_846/2024, UPC_CFI_485/2025, UPC_CFI_535/2025

The Court dismissed Defendants’ preliminary objection, holding that in particular Art. 3 and 32(1) UPCA) do not provide for any temporal limitation of the
exclusive competence of the Court concerning the acts of alleged infringements, whether acts have taken place before or after the entry into force of the UPCA. This is already confirmed by the CoA (UPC_CoA_156/2025 order of 2 June 2025, XSYS/ESKO).

Moreover, the Court held that exercising jurisdiction over past acts does not violate the non-retroactivity principle (Art. 28 VCLT), as the UPC’s purpose implies competence over all infringements regardless of timing (mn. 54 et seq.).

The Court was sufficiently convinced by the evidence provided by the Claimant that the signatures were valid and that the signatories had the authority to sign the agreements. Claimant had provided exemplary signatures and affidavits of the undersigned that they signed the license agreements, a confirmation of the Board of Managers of the Claimant and a Citrix Signature Certificate identifying one of the undersigned as signatory. Against this background the Court held that it would have been up to the Defendants to provide concrete indications that the signatories did not sign the agreements and/or did not have the authority to do so.

However, the Court clarified that an exclusive license can be limited by geography, field of use, or duration (mn. 73, 74).

The Court found a prior art document to disclosed in an enabling way because it disclosed all necessary method steps coherently. The counter-defendants’ challenge that it lacked experimental proof was dismissed, as a correct scientific theory is not required for an enabling disclosure (mn. 179).

In assessing auxiliary request 4 the Court found the combination of the features at hand to be a mere aggregation of two independent methods whereby the features of these methods do not interact functionally to produce an effect that goes beyond mere addition in solving the objective problem. As each of the methods was at least non-inventive, the combination lacked an inventive step (mn. 244).

The Court granted the Claimant the opportunity to reply to arguments the Defendants raised in their rejoinder (which were considered admissible and to be a bona fide and proportionate attempt to respond to the arguments and facts provided by the Claimant in the reply brief) and held that the submissions made by the Claimant which all relate to and respond directly to the arguments raised in the rejoinder are admissible. However, the court disregarded two scientific articles submitted by the Claimant after the rejoinder as late-filed as these articles respond to the general point of Defendants’ defence which has been raised from the beginning (mn. 282 et seqq.).

The Court accepted the parties’ agreement for a €750,000 flat fee per group of parties. This was deemed reasonable given the case value exceeded €50 million resulting in a recoverable costs ceiling of €2 million (mn. 295).