Author: Antje Weise

  • LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

    Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants…

  • Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order on Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_44/2026

    Granting suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances where the appellant’s interest outweighs the respondent’s enforcement interest (Art. 74(1) UPCA): The Court of Appeal confirmed that suspensive effect is an exception to the general rule. The appellant must show that its interest in maintaining the status quo until the appeal is decided outweighs the respondent’s interest in…

  • CD Munich, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2296/2025

    The list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive and cannot be extended to other defences such as lack of standing to sue or res judicata: The court confirmed, in line with the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Aylo v. DISH/SLING (UPC_CoA_188/2024) and Roku/Sun (UPC_CoA_288/2025), that Rule 19.1 RoP only permits objections on…

  • LD Düsseldorf, March 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1849/2025

    Fairness-based language change requires balancing all relevant circumstances; if interests are equal, the defendant’s position is decisive (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP): The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field, language of exhibits) and party-related circumstances (nationality, domicile, size, internal working language, coordination possibilities).…

  • Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_935/2025

    The priciple of front loaded prodeedings also applies to applications for suspensive effect according to R. 223 RoP: An application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence, and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to present one’s full case as early…

  • LD Hamburg, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1049/2025

    The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025): According to Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025, the revised rules re. the Table of Court…

  • LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_414/2024, UPC_CFI_729/2024

    Dismissal due to lack of substantiation after contest of facts : Defendants specifically denied that their products’ functionalities in question are incorporated in the source code of the attacked embodiments. Claimant fails to substantiate in more detail, why it is of the opinion, that this is not true or relevant and point to specific facts…

  • Court of Appeal, December 9, 2025, appeal in proceedings re. damages, UPC_CoA_8/2025

    Failure to monitor the patent landscape can establish “reasonable grounds to know”, Art. 68(1) UPCA: Under Art. 68(1) UPCA, the Court shall, at the request of the injured party, order the infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in a patent infringing activity, to pay the injured party damages appropriate to the…

  • LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Procedural order re. adjournment of proceedings, UPC_CFI_414/2024

    R. 114 RoP is applicable only in exceptional situations where, during the oral hearing, a specific issue or a specific in-depth investigation is identified as necessary and cannot reasonably be completed within the existing hearing slot. : Claimant’s request to reopen the oral hearing and to set a further date for the oral hearing was…

  • Court of Appeal, December 2, 2025, procedural order re. application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_894/2025

    An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending…

  • LD Brussels, December 4, 2025, decision on withdrawal of infringement action and recoverable costs, UPC_CFI_415/2025

    As the Court previously held (cf. LD Düsseldorf – UPC_CFI_355/2025 and UPC_CFI_186/2025 – Fujifilm/Kodak), the focus of appropriateness “is primarily on the amount of costs incurred” and this from an ex ante perspective. When assessing these costs, elements which could be taken into consideration (having regard to the specifical circumstances of a withdrawal of an…

  • CoA, August 20, 2025, order on leave of appeal, UPC_CoA_380/2025

    UPCA and RoP are not subject to interpretation by the CJEU: The UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in accordance with EU law and, in the rare cases where such interpretation is not possible, must of its own motion refrain from applying any provision or practice that conflicts with a provision of…

  • CoA UPC, August 15, 2025, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_737/2025

    No evident error if decision’s reasons are not yet available: Suspensive effect of an appeal may be granted if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently erroneous. No evident error can be identified in the contested decision if the reasons for the decision are not yet available. The assumption of an evident…

  • CoA, order of August 15, 2025, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_740/2025

    Application for suspensive effect is inadmissable if no appeal is filed: It is not possible to apply for suspensive effect before an appeal is lodged. This follows from Art. 74 (1) UPCA stating that an appeal has no suspensive effect unless decided otherwise by the CoA. In cases of extreme urgency the applicant may apply…

  • CoA, August 21, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_764/2024

    No further written submissions after the oral hearing: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, upon a reasoned request by a party submitted before the closure of the written procedure, allow the exchange of further written submissions. After this point, there is no basis for submitting additional written submissions, particularly not without prior approval…

  • CoA, August 21, 2025, order on simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CoA_317/2025

    Request for simultaneous interpretation pursuant to Rule 109.2 RoP must be justified: In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation…

  • LD Mannheim, order of April 23, 2025, UPC_CFI_471/2023

    Order for the preparation of the oral hearing: The Court issued an order for the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing. It highlights a number of key aspects and questions which, in the preliminary opinion of the judge-rapporteur, are likely to be of importance in the oral proceedings. The highlighted aspects are not exhaustive…