Author: Benjamin Ruckert
-
CoA, June 29, 2026, CoA Partially Overturns Broad Evidence Production Order: Limits on Scope Clarified, UPC_CoA_57/2026
The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers.Appellant appealed,…
-
LD Brussels, June 26, 2026, Alignment of UPC evidence production with parallel UK national proceedings under R. 190 RoP, UPC_CFI_629/2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025
In an infringement action with a parallel counterclaim for revocation, the court had issued a first R. 190 RoP order (Order I), ordering the claimant to produce seven categories of evidence, which it did. The defendants then filed a second R. 190 RoP application (Application II), arguing that the evidence produced revealed further relevant material…
-
CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal decision on public access to file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information. Appellant challenged the decision,…
-
LD Düsseldorf, June 26, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1035/2026
A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP: The defendant’s formal notice reserving rights to claim for a “defect in title” of supplied components established the tangible risk needed for the intervener’s legal interest.This interest was reinforced by…
-
UPC-CoA-066/2026, Decision of the President of the Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026
An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must: a) either demonstrate that the person who filed the application to opt out, at the time of filing the application, was not the person shown in each national patent register for which the European patent was validated as the…
-
Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision
Appeals of cost decisions are subject to a limited ‘marginal review’ for reasonableness and proportionality, not a full re-assessment (R. 221 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP): This limited review is justified because the first-instance judge-rapporteur, who decides on costs in writing under R. 156.2 RoP, has managed the case throughout and is best positioned to assess…
-
Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-19/2026
Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.: A patent holder need not assert all patents in a single application for provisional measures. If sufficient information exists to file regarding some patents, waiting to consolidate all patents into…