Author: Anna Giedke
-
LD Brussels, July 23, 2026, Decision on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_2192/2026
Public access during ongoing proceedings requires a specific interest: Granting access to a case file is the general rule and restricting access is the exception (Sec. 7). However, where proceedings are still ongoing, public access to the register requires a “more specific” or “direct legitimate” interest of the applicant to override the interest in protecting…
-
LD Düsseldorf, July 24, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
Admissibility of public access requests under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a specific application: A member of the public must submit a reasoned request explaining the purpose of the requested access and specify the documents and evidence sought as precisely as possible (Sec. 15). In this regard it is sufficient that applicant wants to better undestand…
-
LD Milan, July 30, 2026, Order on Cost Security, UPC_CFI_2216/2025, UPC_CFI_1829/2026
Minimum share capital and microenterprise structure are per se not sufficient to justify security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP: The Court held that (i) claimant’s minimum share capital of EUR 19,700 and (ii) its microenterprise structure were in themselves insufficient circumstances to assess a company’s financial soundness. A relatively modest…
-
LD Munich, July 27, 2026, Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises, UPC_CFI_1746/2026, UPC_CFI_1747/2026, UPC_CFI_1751/2026, UPC_CFI_1752/2026
Art. 60(1) UPCA is a lex specialis displacing general confidentiality rules under Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262, 262A RoP in evidence preservation proceedings (Sec. 30): While Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP grant the Court a discretion to order confidentiality measures to protect confidential information, Art. 60(1) UPCA mandatorily requires the…
-
CD Milan, July 29, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_1902/2025
Pragmatic solution for alignment of deadlines and service : The Claimant lodged an infringement action against two Defendants, Ziwu registered in China and Resosport registered in Hong Kong. Service was duly effected on Ziwu but not on Resosport. Ziwu thus requested an alignment of deadlines against acceptance of service by Resosport. Claimant opposed to the…
-
LD Milan, July 21, 2026, interim conference, UPC_CFI_703/2025 and UPC_CFI_1757_2025
Physical inspections and judicial weighing experiments may be ordered under Rules 170.2(f), 170.2(g), and 201 RoP if necessary and proportionate to establish infringement: The claimant’s request to weigh the seized vehicle was justified to prove infringement. The court noted that practical difficulties and costs do not negate the necessity of the experiment. (Sec. 10 et…
-
LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, Decision on infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025
FRAND behaviour: consent to amend NDA required: If an NDA between the parties prevents one party from making submissions or producing documents, and the other party, without reasonable justification, refuses to amend the NDA to enable such production, this shall be to the detriment of the latter party (headnote 1, Sec. 352 et seqq.).In such…
-
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 Düsseldorf, April 23, 2026, Decision, Infringement action and CCfR, UPC_CFl_559/2024 and UPC_CFl_106/2025 – Quantificare v. Canfield
Pan-UPC-territorial orders under Art. 34 UPCA can be based on infringing acts in a “carved-out” Contracting Member State (Headnote; mn. 238 et seqq.): The claimant had excluded Germany from the infringement action before the UPC Düsseldorf LD for procedural reasons (parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court for the German national portion of the same…
-
LD Mannheim, April 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1291/2026, Anti-Anti Suit Injunction against “Interim Licence” application before Chinese Court
The UPC has jurisdiction to issue an AASI to secure pending patent infringement proceedings before the UPC (Art. 31, 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a) UPCA) (mn. 16 et seq.): Imminent infringement of patents within the meaning of Article 32(1)(a) UPCA is not only its unlawful use. Also the application for a foreign injunction with the aim to prevent…
-
LD Milan, April 21, 2026, Infringement action, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Long-arm jurisdiction via Art. 8 (1) Brussel Ia Recast Regulation (BR): The “risk of irreconcilable judgements” requires a four-part assessment: same factual and legal situation, predictability and no abuse: The question was whether UPC Milan LD had jurisdiction for co-defendants based in Spain (i.e., non-UPC territory) for infringing actions in Spain. The result was affirmative…
-
CD Paris, April 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_461/2025
Legal interest in revocation proceedings must be examined by the Court of its own motion, even where the defendant does not challenge admissibility (headnote 1; para. 11): The Court held that legal interest is a question of law forming part of admissibility. This examination was particularly necessary here because the patent had already expired by…
-
Court of Appeal, April 17, 2026, Order concerning a request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_901/2025
Non-technical features (on their own a “non-invention” acc. to Art. 52(2) EPC) must not be excluded from the inventive step assessment if they contribute to the technical character of the invention through interaction with other claim features (headnote 1; para. 112): The Court held that the interrelationship and functioning of all claim features must be…
-
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…