-
CD Milan, August 19, 2026, central revocation action, UPC_CFI_860/2025
Legal persons are, as a rule, always “concerned” within the meaning of Art. 47.6 UPCA when bringing a revocation action.: The concept of being concerned by a patent, as laid down in Article 47(6) UPCA for revocation actions, is to be interpreted broadly. A distinction must be drawn between private and commercial acts, as Article…
-
CoA Luxemburg, August 13, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CoA_884/2025 (appeal from UPC_CFI_231/2024)
Added matter: Omitting a feature disclosed together with claimed features constitutes added matter only where an extricable functional or structural link exists between the omitted and claimed features (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 65(2) UPCA).: One situation where added matter may arise is when claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a…
-
LD Paris, August 19, 2026, Infringement action with conditional counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_301/2025 and UPC_CFI_713/2025
Making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible under Art. 33(3) UPCA and promotes procedural economy.: Where the defendant requests, and the claimant does not object, that the counterclaim be decided only if infringement is found, the court may examine infringement first and defer the validity analysis to a later…
-
CoA Luxemburg, August 17, 2026, appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties, UPC_CoA_87/2026
A defendant addressed by an injunction must control third parties and platforms used to market the attacked product, to ensure compliance with the order (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP).: Where a defendant assigns tasks to third parties to fulfil an injunction, or provides content to a third-party marketing platform, it remains responsible for ensuring…
-
LD Paris, April 16, 2026, Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_138/2025, UPC_CFI_522/2025
Party-affiliated affidavits are valuable technical information but lack the probative value of independent expert opinions (R. 181(2) RoP).: Both parties submitted affidavits from current or former employees. The Court treated these as witness statements rather than expert opinions, but nonetheless considered them valuable technical information from persons with industry experience in the relevant technical area.…
-
LD Mannheim, April 16, 2026, Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_819/2024 and UPC_CFI_414/2025
Claim construction: The patent is its own lexicon, “purposive non-use” excludes intent not contamination, and claim features can be technically interdependent.: The term “alkali-free” was interpreted not as a complete absence but as a concentration below a specific threshold defined in the patent itself. The prohibition on “using neither arsenic nor antimony” was held to…
-
LD Paris, April 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1594/2025
Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).: The lack of novelty need not stem solely from what is explicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed in a prior art document. It may also arise from what is necessarily implied,…
-
CD Milan, April 10, 2026, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_480/2025
If any legitimate mapping of prior art onto claim features destroys novelty, the patent must be revoked (Art. 54 EPC).: When assessing novelty, the Court will examine the disclosure of the prior art document overall and will compare this disclosure to the scope of the patent-in-suit. If one way of “mapping” leads to the assessment…
