Author: Benedikt Dellen

  • LD The Hague, Infringement Action, February 24, 2026, UPC_CFI_619/2025

    Broad injunctive relief covers future product variants without claim amendment (R. 263 RoP): Following the CoA’s Abbott/Sibio ruling (UPC_CoA_328/2024), a claimant requesting general injunctive relief covering patent claims can capture future product variants without amending its claim, provided the prayer for relief is drafted broadly enough, e.g., including “further versions or variants thereof.” Amendment to…

  • Court of Appeal, February 26, 2026, request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_34/2026

    A penalty order under R. 354.4 RoP is appealable only via the leave-to-appeal mechanism: The appellant argued that the CFI’s reference to R. 354.4 RoP in the impugned order created the impression that leave to appeal had already been granted, analogous to Total v. Texas Instruments (CoA_651/2024). The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that…

  • Court of Appeal, February 27, 2026, request for further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CoA_884/2025

    Requests, facts and evidence from first instance automatically form part of appeal proceedings (R. 222.1 and R. 222.2 RoP): The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response. The judge-rapporteur rejected this application, finding no justification for reopening…

  • Court of Appeal, March 3, 2026, order on a R.265 RoP application and determination of value in dispute, UPC_CoA_887/2025

    A claimant can withdraw an action for provisional measures even during a pending appeal, with the defendant’s consent, closing proceedings at both instances (R. 265.1, R. 265.2 RoP).: The Court permitted the withdrawal requested by the claimant and consented to by the defendant, as no final decision had been made.  Upon withdrawal of an action,…

  • LD The Hague, February 25, 2026, UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025

    A number of 42 auxiliary requests (ARs) in response to e Counterclaim for Revocation may be deemed unreasonable; the court can order the patentee to provide a structured tabular overview for procedural efficiency (Rule 30 RoP).: The court clarified that any further combinations of ARs not included in the claimant’s initial application to amend would…

  • Court of Appeal, March 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_678/2025

    The written procedure on appeal is limited; there is no automatic right to reply to the Statement of Response (Part 4 RoP, R. 237, R. 238 RoP): Under Part 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the appellant may file a Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the respondent a Statement of Response. No further written…

  • LD The Hague, March 3, 2026, infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_43/2025, UPC_CFI_103/2025

    Jurisdiction is affirmed if no preliminary objection is filed (Rule 19.7 RoP).: The defendants, including a US-based defendant, did not file a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP and were therefore deemed to have submitted to the UPC’s jurisdiction. Claim construction (Art. 69 EPC) takes into account function; optional embodiments in the description do not…

  • Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Referral to CJEU, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025

    UPC refers to CJEU for guidance on whether jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant can be based on a UPC-domiciled co-defendant for acts in a non-UPC Member State (Art. 8(1) in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) Reg. 1215/2012).: The CoA questions if an alleged direct infringer and an alleged intermediary are in the “same situation of fact…

  • LD Brussels, November 12, 2025, UPC_CFI_407/2025, UPC_CFI_408/2025

    Pursuant to R. 197.1 RoP, the Court may order measures to preserve evidence without the defendant having been heard. R. 197.3 RoP specifies a review process by the defendant. The LD Brussels finds that this review is a two-step process: (1.) Was the ex parte order rightly issued considering the facts and evidence brought forward…