Author: Henri Kirner

  • LD Hamburg, June 10, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026 — Security for Costs Against Asset-Pledged Patent Litigation Entity

    Florida Statutes’ conditions for recognizing foreign judgments reflect international standards and do not justify ordering security for costs under R. 158 RoP: The fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not establish an enforcement risk. Section 55 of the Florida Statutes conditions recognition on ordre publique, reciprocity, and fair trial principles –…

  • Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_85/2026

    A value-in-dispute determination is a procedural decision governed by R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP, even when included in the operative part of a final decision: The appellate regime of an order depends on its substantive nature, not on whether it appears alongside other orders in a final decision. A value-in-dispute determination could have been…

  • LD Hamburg, June 8, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026

    Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).: The Court held that R. 13.1(i) RoP requires the claimant to provide the relevant facts enabling the Court to assess jurisdiction. It is the Court’s duty to identify and apply the correct law (iura novit curia).…

  • LD The Hague, June 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1470/2026

    Effective service date for an unrepresented defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court is calculated under R. 271.6.b RoP, subject to the “unless” conditions of that rule.: Where multiple defendants are served at slightly different times, the Court may set under R. 9.3 RoP uniform dates for the lodging of a Preliminary…

  • LD Milan, June 8, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2046/2025

    .aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }Deemed service on a non-responsive foreign defendant: a registered letter is deemed served ten days after posting, regardless of whether it is collected (R. 271.6(b), R. 276.1 RoP).: Where postal service attempts are returned as “Unclaimed”, the passive or disinterested conduct of a defendant cannot obstruct the continuation of…

  • 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…