Author: Anna Giedke
-
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…
-
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…