Author: Anna Giedke
-
CD Paris, 30 December 2025, Decision re. application to set aside a decision of the EPO, UPC_CFI_1771/2025
The UPC applies EU law when reviewing EPO decisions, ensuring EU legal guarantees are respected in the administrative procedure (Art. 1(2), Art. 20 UPCA): The EPO rejected the application for unitary effect because the patent had not been granted for all participating Member States at the time of grant and of the request for unitary…
-
CD Paris, 7 January 2026, Decision in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_433/2024
An application to substantively amend a patent is only admissible if a full, consolidated set of claims is filed in time with the deadline of the application (R. 30 RoP): The Court cannot redraft claims for a party due to the principle of judicial neutrality. Amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstruction, ensuring clarity…
-
Court of Appeal, December 19, 2025, Order concerning the need to adjudicate pursuant to R. 360 RoP, UPC-CoA-906/2025
An appeal can be disposed of under R. 360 RoP if it becomes devoid of purpose, meaning the appellant no longer has a legal interest in its continuation: An appeal against a procedural order excluding evidence becomes moot if the main action is subsequently decided in the appellant’s favor, as no further advantage can be…
-
Court of Appeal, December 29, 2025, decision on revocation action, UPC_CoA_71/2025
Accuracy of translation to be checked at an early stage: The Appellant argued that a translation of a Korean prior art document filed by the Respondent in first instance was incorrect and at best inaccurate and filed own translations on appeal. The CoA holds that these translations are late filed and shall be disregarded. Given…
-
Court of Appeal, Standing Judge, December 29, 2025, order regarding an application for suspensive effect, UPC-COA-0000936/2025
No “manifestly” erroneous decision if point of contention is a complex issue requiring in-depth-analysis: The Appellant argues that the impunged order of the LD Mannheim is based on the evidently incorrect assumption that a decision by the UK Court on a request for a court determined license by the Appellant would be equal to an…
-
IP Insights: Are UPC injunctions subject to proportionality considerations?
▶️ Watch our latest #IP Insights, in which our attorneys-at-law Dr. Anna Giedke and Dr. Tobias Wuttke share our first-hand experience at the UPC. What has previously been a global discussion has now reached the Unified Patent Court. ❓ Is there a disproportionality defense? These are the points to consider: The UPC member states are…
-
Untangling the UPC: What in-house patent experts need to know now
JUVE PATENT and BARDEHLE PAGENBERG invited in-house IP counsel and expert guests from selected tech firms to an informal in-house IP networking event. The Unified Patent Court opened for business on 1 June; 20 days in, we wanted to reflect on this historic milestone and explore what the future will bring. The first few months of…
-
LD The Hague, September 11, 2025, Order on provisional measures based on equivalence, UPC_CFI_479/2025
Infringement by equivalent embodiment likely: The challenged embodiments comprised an L-shaped strip that was made of plastic, not of metal. The patent claimed an “L-shaped metal strip”. The Court applied the test for equivalence adpoted in Plant-e v. Arkyne (LD The Hague of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023). It found equivalent infringement more likely than not.…
-
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_338/2024
Direct infringement when supplying set of components: If the patent-protected product is specifically designed to easily assemble its components at the place of use without the addition of further items, the mere offering or supplying of all components already constitutes a direct patent infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. Direct infringement when supplying…
-
LD Mannheim, September 16, 2025, order on the production of evidence, UPC_CFI_247/2025
Production of license agreements in FRAND context ordered.: Pursuant to R. 190 RoP and taking into account the stage of the proceedings, the production of license agreements was ordered insofar as the claimant agreed to submit the license agreements specified by it but could not receive the consent of its respective contractual partners to submit…
-
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_481/2025
Key takeaway If the language of proceedings shall be changed and the parties’ interests are weighed, the defendant’s interests shall prevail in the event of equal outcome.: In the event that the weighing of interests of the defendant and the claimant results in a draw, the position of the defendant – having not initiated the…
-
LD Duesseldorf, September 12, 2025, procedural order on further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CFI_733/2024
Strict requirement for R. 36 RoP application for written submissions beyond those foreseen in the Rules: The correct means to introduce written pleadings outside the regime provided for in the Rules of Procedure is an application pursuant to R. 36 RoP. Such an application must be made prior to the date on which the judge-rapporteur…
-
LD Mannheim, June 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Pre-emptive enforcement warning rejected: Applications for advance warnings of penalties for non-compliance are likely to be rejected if the court has already exercised discretion on enforcement. The claimant’s request for a warning of daily penalties was denied, as the court had already decided not to set such terms in the main proceedings. Time period for…
-
LD Helsinki, February 11, 2025, procedural order regarding changes in a case, UPC_CFI_214/2013
The main issues to be considered when addressing the admissibility of changes in a case are that the nature of the frontloaded procedure of the UPC must be protected and that during the process there are no such changes that the defendant’s right to defence is compromised.: If these two premises are protected there is…
-
LD Milan, February 7, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_472/2024
The position of the party attacking the patent shall be protected to the same extent as that of the party defending the patent.: If the mandatory coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings before the UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way by extending the time limits for filing…
-
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…
-
CD Munich, October 22, 2024, public access to the register, UPC_CFI_1/2023, UPC_CFI_14/2023
Rule 262.1(b) RoP does not provide a legal basis for making available documents that are not written pleadings or evidence.: The general principle laid down in the UPCA is that the register is public and the proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interests involved is such that they are to be…