Author: Antje Weise
-
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…
-
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order in cost proceedings, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_626/2024, UPC_CFI_115/2025, UPC_CFI_116/2025
Costs calculated based on the German Lawyer’s Fees Act (RVG) are recoverable : The German Lawyers’ Fees Act stipulates statutory minimum fees for proceedings conducted before the German courts. It can be assumed that the fees calculated in accordance with this Act are generally necessary and reasonable and therefore also recoverable before the UPC. Division…
-
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order on costs, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_121/2025, UPC_CFI_124/2025, UPC_CFI_626/2024
Recoverable costs must be reasonable and proportionate: “Reasonable” essentially means necessary. Based on the ex-ante standpoint of a reasonable and economically sound party, the decisive factor is whether the cost-incurring measure appeared objectively necessary and suitable to achieve the legitimate procedural objective. The measure must therefore have appeared appropriate for the prosecution or defense of…
-
LD Munich, April 17, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_846/2024
A preliminary objection may relate to a part of an infringement action only: Defendants’ objection to the UPC’s jurisdiction over acts commited prior to the start of the UPC is admissible. Possible UPC jurisdiction on infringing actions solely occurred before June 1, 2023: Defendant states in its preliminary objection that one attacked embodiment was only…
-
CoA, January 15, 2025, order on withdrawal, UPC_CoA_629/2024
Withdrawal of the action during appeal proceedings possible: After the first instance infringement decision was appealed, the decision on withdrawal is within the competence of the CoA. According to R. 265.1 RoP, the decision of the first instance is not final. Therefore, admissibility of the withdrawal of the infringment action is not precluded during appeal.…
-
LD Munich, January 13, 2025, revised order on auxiliary requests, UPC_CFI_298/2023
The number of 55 auxiliary requests can be reasonable: Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds of invalidity raised), the importance of the patent at issue and the…
-
CoA, January 14, 2024, order on panel review, UPC_CoA_651/2024
Order on security is case management and open for panel review (R. 333 RoP): Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel. There is a broad scope for review of actions of the judge-rapporteur, as laid down…
-
CD Paris, September 27, 2024, Procedural Order on Security of Costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
50% of ceiling of recoverable costs as security during written proccedings: The Respondent is a limited company which was registered 7 months before the present infringement action was filed and has only one employee besides the managing director. It’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding…
-
LD Munich, October 2, Procedural Order on Security for Costs UPC_CFI_54/2024
US-based NPE has to provide security: The Claimant is a non-practicing entity with no operational business. Its business model appears to be based solely on revenues expected from patent litigation. The Claimant owns no other assets other than the patents used in multiple worldwide litigations and it has failed to substantially challenge these reasons and…
-
LD Paris, August 21, 2024, Procedural order, UPC_CFI_358/2023
Only the arguments according to its written corresponding proceeding are considered : R. 36 RoP allows the parties to request additional written submissions from the judge rapporteur on a reasoned request, in order to ensure that the principles of flexibility and adaptability and the general principle of justice and fairness set out in point 2…
-
LD Hamburg, August 9, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_278/2023
The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court’s satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable: The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court’s satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable, as shown by the wording…
-
LD Duesselorf, August 8, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_140/2024
No reason to limit access for authorised representative’s team: Normally, in main proceedings there is no reason to limit the party’s representatives who have access to confidential information to a certain number of team members or even to UPC representatives and their internal assistants. To fullfill the requirement of R. 262A.6 RoP (number of persons…