Author: Fabian Laude

  • LD Hamburg, April 7, 2026, final order, UPC_CFI_2255/2025

    Universal jurisdiction doctrine consolidated: The panel — departing from its own earlier position in Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025) and following the Court of Appeal’s ruling (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) — held that the UPC is a court of a member state within the meaning of Art. 71a BR. Its territory encompasses all Contracting Member States. Consequently, the UPC possesses universal jurisdiction…

  • CD Munich, April 8, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_280/2025

    A realistic starting point in the same technical field does not automatically render the claimed invention obvious (Art. 56 EPC, Art. 65(1)–(2) UPCA).: Even if prior art qualifies as a realistic starting point, it remains relevant for the inventive step assessment that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem…

  • Court of Appeal, April 7, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_21/2026

    Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA can only be ordered against the applicant who is initiating proceedings. Never in the applicant’s favour.: An “applicant” is defined as the person who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This one-directional mechanism ensures that the party brought involuntarily into proceedings is protected against unrecoverable costs. At…

  • LD Paris, February 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_583/2025

    An order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP requires the claimant to present reasonably available and plausible evidence supporting its infringement claim.: The claimant must specify evidence within the defendant’s control. The Court’s order is subject to safeguards for confidential information and the right against self-incrimination (Art. 59(1) UPCA). The…

  • LD Paris – 04. February 2026 – Security for Cost -UPC_CFI_5302025

    A default judgment for failing to provide security for costs is a discretionary sanction (Rule 158.5, 355.1 RoP) and requires a clear failure of diligence.: The Court found no failure of diligence where the claimant blocked the required funds in time, sought clarification on the procedure, and promptly submitted a compliant guarantee after receiving guidance.…

  • LD Düsseldorf, September 29, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_496/2025

    An infringement action can be withdrawn with the defendant’s consent under Rule 265.1 RoP, leading the Court to declare the proceedings closed.: Before the written procedure closed, the claimant applied to withdraw the action. The defendants consented, and the Court, following the parties’ joint will, allowed the withdrawal and closed the case. When an action…

  • LD Munich, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_63/2025

    Ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders may be granted if the applicant provides sufficient evidence of likely infringement (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 197.3 RoP).: The court will grant such orders without hearing the defendant if the applicant submits all reasonably available evidence supporting a likelihood of patent infringement or threat thereof. The review…

  • Court of Appeal, May 23, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_7/2025

    Withdrawal of appeal permitted where both parties consent and no legitimate interest remains (Rule 265.1 RoP).: The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant to withdraw the appeal after the respondent consented, as neither party had a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings. 40% reimbursement of court fees granted for withdrawal before closure of interim procedure…

  • CD Paris, May 28, 2025, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_198/2024

    Revocation of European patents can be limited to specific UPC Member States upon request (Art. 34, 76(1) UPCA; Rule 44(d) RoP): The Court confirmed it may revoke a European (bundle) patent only for the national part(s) specified by the claimant, not necessarily for all UPC Member States. This approach respects the adversarial nature of proceedings…