• Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC-CoA-61/2026

    Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA): In the dispute concerning preliminary measures, two patents were at issue originally, EP201 and EP198. However, the applicant withdrew its request based on EP201…

  • Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on the Admissibility of the Appeal, UPC-COA-0894/2025

    Logging into the CMS via secure two-factor authentication is insufficient to make effective submissions: under Rule 4.1 RoP all pleadings must be signed with a certified electronic signature: The Court of Appeal confirmed that secure authentication to log into the CMS only verifies the user’s identity for system access. It does not replace the mandatory…

  • LD Hamburg, August 24, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action with Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_495/2025 and UPC_CFI_494/2025

    A SEP holder is only required to offer a single FRAND-compliant licensing route: pool or bilateral (hn. 1): Competition law does not require a patent holder to offer both a pool licence and a bilateral licence; indicating one route that meets FRAND requirements is sufficient, aligning with prior LD Munich case law (Huawei v Netgear).…

  • LD Düsseldorf, August 25, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_56/2025, UPC_CFI_864/2025

    Direct infringement of a product claim turns on objective capability, not the manufacturer’s intended or recommended use: For direct infringement of a product claim under Art. 25(a) UPCA, the decisive factor is whether the accused embodiment is, due to its nature and suitability for use, objectively capable of fulfilling the claim features; regardless of the…

  • Court of Appeal, June 18, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_907/2026

    New facts and evidence on appeal face a strict admissibility threshold under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP.: The Court considers three factors:(a) whether the party can justify that the submissions could not reasonably have been made at first instance,(b) the relevance of the new submissions, and(c) the position of the other party.Evidence relating…

  • LD Mannheim, June 16, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CFI_86/2025

    An intangible data stream, like a video bitstream, is a “product” under Art. 25(a) and 25(c) UPCA, allowing direct enforcement of encoding patents against streaming services.: There is no relevant difference between data on a physical carrier and data transmitted over a network; the carrier has no technical significance for the data’s use. The bitstream…

  • LD Milan, June 17, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1129_2026 and UPC_CFI_1130_2026

    For late-stage interim relief requests (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP), urgency has a specific meaning: the applicant must prove a new, escalating risk justifying immediate action.: Applications for provisional measures are admissible at any stage of main proceedings, even towards the end, as there is no legal limitation under R. 206.1 RoP. However, when…

  • 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…