Author: Henri Kirner
-
Central Division (Munich), February 24, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_829/2024
Patentees must draft precise numerical ranges in composition claims; unclear bases risk added matter (Art. 65(1),(2) UPCA; Art. 138(1)(c) EPC).: The Court construed the coposition as claimed in claim 1 of the Patent as comprising a range of marker molecule calculated in respect of the total sugar composition, while the application disclosed that the amounts…
-
LD Mannheim, February 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_344/2025; UPC_CFI_735/2025; PR-UPC-CFI-0000639/2026
One fee for a joint counterclaim in a single action (R. 370.7 RoP): When multiple defendants file a single counterclaim for revocation in the same action only one one value-based fee applies. Separate, later counterclaim requires its own fee (R. 370.7 RoP; Art. 70 UPCA): A defendant served later who files its own counterclaim –…
-
Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025
Rehearing is an exceptional remedy; only fundamental, outcome‑determinative procedural defects justify reopening final appeal decisions (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247 RoP): The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate…
-
LD Hamburg, November 5, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_461/2024, UPC_CFI_718/2024
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter, confirming a consistent disclosure standard across the UPC.: The Court confirmed the recent Dusseldorf LD decision (UPC_CFI_115/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) that for purposes of determining the correct priority date, the same standard applies as for added matter, as…
-
Court of Appeal, October 31, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_755/2025 & UPC_CoA_757/2025
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.: The Court of Appeal denied the appliant’s request to apply R. 21.2 RoP (stay of the proceedings if an appeal is lodged), as the only existing appeal concerned a different matter (confidentiality) and no appeal on the preliminary objection existed. The…