• CoA, July 9, 2025, order, UPC_CoA_430/2025

    Case management orders, such as orders concerning security for costs, require panel review before appeal: R. 333.1 RoP mandates that case maagement orders issued by the judge-rapporteur (e.g. security for costs orders) must be reviewed by the panel of the CFI before an appeal to the CoA is admissible: Judge-rapporteur’s decision to grant leave to…

  • CoA, July 9, 2025, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_431/2025

    Failure to lodge Statement of response within the time limit of R. 235.2 RoP: Under R. 9.2 RoP the Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit. The CoA will, however, have to examine whether the grounds of appeal are…

  • CoA, July 10, 2025, procedural order concerning an application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_581/2025

    Application for suspensive effect can only be granted if the circumstances of the case justify an exceptionto the principle that the appeal has no suspensive effect: Exceptional circumstances may justify a request for suspensive effect. Examination whether, on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo…

  • LD Munich, February 12, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_714/2024

    LD Munich competent to hear an infringement action, although appeal before the Court of Appeal is pending between the same parties regarding an action for provisional measures based on the same patent that was filed in first instance with the LD Düsseldorf : A case is not “pending before a division of the Court of…

  • Court of Appeal, February 12, 2025, Order concerning representation, UPC_CoA_634/2024, UPC_CoA_635/2024, UPC_CoA_636/2024

    Lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented if they themselves are parties in cases before the UPC.: All applicants of any application or action under the UPCA and RoP are required to be represented, except if the RoP waive the requirement of representation. An applicant under R. 262.1(b)…

  • Court of Appeal, February 11, 2025, Appeal of a Panel Review Order regarding right to represent, UPC_CoA_563/2024, APL_53716/2024

    Representation of parties in proceedings before the UPC, Art. 48 UPCA: No corporate representative of a legal person or any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the…

  • LD Munich, November 21, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_550/2024

    The Rules of Procedure of the UPC do not contain a principle according to which evidence for factual allegations arising from the action may no longer be submitted by the party to the action after the action has been filed.: According to Rule 172.2 RoP, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order…

  • LD Düsseldorf, November 20, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_347/2024 and UPC_CFI_368/2024

    “Obvious slips” within the meaning of R. 353 RoP, which allow the Court to rectify a decision or order, are all incorrect or incomplete statements of what the Court actually intended in the order or decision. In other words, the declaration of the Court’s intention in the decision or order must deviate from the intention…

  • Court of Appeal, November 21, 2024, Order, UPC_CoA_456/2024

    Not every new argument constitutes an “amendment of a case” requiring a party to apply for leave under R. 263 RoP. : A case is amended when the nature or scope of the dispute changes. For example, in an infringement case, this occurs if the plaintiff invokes a different patent or objects to a different…

  • LD Munich, September 13, 2024, infringement action: decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_390/2023

    No stay of the proceedings due to national nullity proceedings re. German part of patent-in-suit: Requirements of R. 295(a) RoP not fulfilled, appeal of the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) against the first instance decision of the German Federal Patent Court (FPC) is not expected to be given rapidly. A stay according to R.…

  • LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, panel review order re. security for costs, UPC_CFI_373/2023, ORD_48181/2024

    Confirmation of legal standard: it is a discretionary decision to order a security for legal costs and other expenses; imposing of a security serves to protect the position and (potential) rights of the Defendant : Factors to be considered (following CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2024; CD Munich, UPC_CFI_252/2023; LD Paris, UPC_495/2023): financial position of the other party that…

  • Court of Appeal, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_489/2024, ORD_48358/2024

    Applicant failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP (point 8 of the Preamble of the RoP) or any other objective of the discretionary review procedure. Its contention that the impugned order is incorrect and does not provide a detailed interpretation…

  • CoA Luxembourg, June 4, 2024, order on withdrawal of appeal, UPC_CoA_183/2024

    Applicable rule for the withdrawal of an appeal: R. 265 RoP, which has a broad scope: R. 265 RoP is primarily drafted with a view to comprehensive withdrawals of whole actions. It does neither distinguish between the first instance and the appeal proceedings nor between procedural appeal and appeals in substance. It does also not…

  • CoA Luxembourg, June 4, 2024, order on withdrawal of appeal, UPC_CoA_205/2024

    Applicable rule for the withdrawal of an appeal: R. 265 RoP, which has a broad scope: R. 265 RoP is primarily drafted with a view to comprehensive withdrawals of whole actions. It does neither distinguish between the first instance and the appeal proceedings nor between procedural appeal and appeals in substance. It does also not…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 23, 2024, secrecy protection order, UPC_CFI_463/2023

    The requirement to be heard prior to issuing a secrecy protection order according to R. 262A RoP applies only to the final secrecy order and access restriction: In the interest of effective secrecy protection, access can be further restricted until a final order is issued, namely to the representative of the plaintiff In consideration of…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 23, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Postponement of the start of a deadline until conclusion of secrecy protection proceedings according to R. 262A RoP is not compatible with the urgent nature of proceedings for provisional measures: As made clear in procedural order ORD_8568/2024, none of the deadlines in such proceedings for provisional measures can be extended in view of the timely…

  • LD Paris, February 12, 2024, procedural order re. alternative method of service, UPC_CFI_495/2023

    Requirements for alternative methods of service: If digital tracking provided by the post office shows that delivery of the Statement of claim (SoC) initiated by the Court could not be carried out, alternative methods of service are possible, R. 275.1 RoP. In the present case, Claimant subsequently suggested three methods of service that appeared to…