Author: Ann-Kathrin Michel

  • LD Hamburg, April 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_685/2024, UPC_CFI_157/2025

    High number of auxiliary requests (here: 51) may be admissible where the patent faces numerous and diverse validity challenges (headnote 1): The Court must weigh all relevant circumstances, including the complexity of the technology, the number of prior art documents, the nature and number of validity attacks (novelty, inventive step, clarity, enablement, added matter), and…

  • Court of Appeal, April 24, 2026, Order concerning an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP), UPC_COA_57/2026

    Suspensive effect is exceptional and rarely granted for procedural orders: The Court confirmed three categories of exceptional circumstances that may justify a stay: (1) irreversibility of enforcement consequences; (2) manifest error in the impugned order; and (3) evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Under Art. 74(3) UPCA,…

  • LD Brussels, April 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_871/2026

    Unsolicited submissions in a language change application are generally inadmissible to ensure a rapid decision (headnote 1): A rapid decision on a language-change request benefits both parties and case management. Submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP and filed without prior authorisation are inadmissible and will be disregarded. A language-change application under Art. 49(5) UPCA…

  • LD The Hague, April 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_305/2026

    Provisional measures dismissed where the applicant fails to establish infringement on the balance of probabilities: The Court applied the “more likely than not” test for provisional measures. Since it found that on the balance of probabilities likely the patent is not infringed, the Application was dismissed on this ground alone, without needing to address the…

  • Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_5/2025, UPC_CoA_237/2025, UPC_CoA_328/2025

    Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 60% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…

  • Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_257/2025

    Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 20% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…

  • CD Paris, January 12, 2026, Decision by default, UPC_CFI_350/2025

    A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit: The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant’s right to an expeditious procedure. The defendant was served in the USA via…

  • CoA, September 23, 2025, Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025

    Intervention in appeal proceedings is admissible if a direct legal interest in an interim order is shown (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was allowed to intervene in the appeal proceedings because the confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted in the proceedings could affect the Applicant’s business interests by exposing its confidential information to competitors. Legal…

  • CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025

    Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…

  • Court of Appeal, June 20, 2025, order concerning security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CoA_393/2025

    Security for costs can only be requested by defendants, not claimants, in infringement or revocation actions: According to Art 69 (4) UPC Agreement (UPCA), at the request of the defendant, the court may order the claimant to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant which the claimant may…