-
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023
No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…
-
CoA Luxemburg, April 18, 2025, application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_166/2025
Suspensive effect of an appeal must only be ordered in exceptional circumstances: The application for suspensive effect is admissible but must be dismissed as unfounded. A order on suspensive effect may be considered, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence…
-
CD Munich, April 18, 2025, Generic Order, UPC_CFI_526/2024
Reasonable number of auxiliary requests: To ascertain what constitutes a reasonable number of auxiliary requests, several factors are to be considered: the complexity of the technology involved, the number of prior art documents, the individual validity attacks and the presentation and structure of the auxiliary requests. It is not relevant whether there are multiple proceedings…
-
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order on costs, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_121/2025, UPC_CFI_124/2025, UPC_CFI_626/2024
Recoverable costs must be reasonable and proportionate: “Reasonable” essentially means necessary. Based on the ex-ante standpoint of a reasonable and economically sound party, the decisive factor is whether the cost-incurring measure appeared objectively necessary and suitable to achieve the legitimate procedural objective. The measure must therefore have appeared appropriate for the prosecution or defense of…
-
LD Munich, April 17, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_846/2024
A preliminary objection may relate to a part of an infringement action only: Defendants’ objection to the UPC’s jurisdiction over acts commited prior to the start of the UPC is admissible. Possible UPC jurisdiction on infringing actions solely occurred before June 1, 2023: Defendant states in its preliminary objection that one attacked embodiment was only…
-
CoA, January 9, 2025, order concerning public access to the register, UPC_CoA_480/2024; UPC_CoA_481/2024
Public has a right to access court records: This right is enshrined in Rule 262.1(b) RoP and promotes transparency and trust in the court system. The Court of Appeal emphasized that this right allows the public to understand court decisions and scrutinize the court’s handling of disputes. The Appellant argued against public access, claiming it…
-
CoA, January 8, 2025, order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_621/2024
Timing and grounds of an intervention (Rule 313 RoP): An application to intervene may be lodged at any stage of the proceedings by any person establishing a legal interest in the result of an action. An application to intervene shall only be admissible if it is made before the closure of the written procedure unless…
-
CoA, December 23, 2024, oder concerning an application for a discretionary review (Rule 220.3 RoP)
Unconditional right to limit claims for damages (R. 263.3 RoP): An unconditional application to reduce the amount of damages claimed shall be considered as an unconditional application under Rule 263.3 RoP. Leave to limit a claim in an action unconditionally shall always be granted. Procedure for determining the value of the action (R. 22, 104,…
-
CD Milan, December 23, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_ 380/2024
Criteria for intervention (Rule 313 RoP): An intervener must demonstrate a legally qualified interest, not merely a factual one. This interest must be connected to the legal relationship in litigation and entail potential harm to the intervener’s rights if the original party loses the case. Decision on costs of an application to intervene (Rule 150…
-
CD Paris, December 27, 2024, Order concerning an application for additional Security for Costs, Rule 158 RoP, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Modification instead of additional request: Requests for increased security for costs are treated as modifications of existing orders, requiring analysis under Rule 158 RoP. Power to amend orders on security for costs: The UPC can amend orders on security for costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP if the facts underlying the initial order have changed.…
-
CD Paris, December 27, 2024, Application under Rule 333 RoP for review of security for costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Incorrect citation of legal provisions is harmless: The Court must consider a motion even if the legal provisions cited are incorrect, provided the correct legal grounds can be identified from the arguments and facts. The same applies if an application refers to an incorrect order. Change in factual circumstances can impact an existing order on…
-
LD Hamburg, December 30, 2024, No preliminary decision on admissibility of amendments of claims, UPC_CFI_173/2024 und 424/2024
No preliminary decisions on admissibility of requests for amendment of claims (Rule 263 RoP, Rule 30 RoP): It is generally not procedurally efficient to decide on the substantive admissibility of requests to amend claims (Rule 30 RoP) and corresponding amendments of the claim or the case (Rule 263 RoP) in a preliminary decision pursuant to…
-
CD Paris, September 16, 2024, Order on Manifest Inadmissibility, UPC_CFI_164/2024
High threshold for “manifestly inadmissible” under Rule 361 RoP: The Court held that “manifest inadmissibility” must be established prima facie on the basis of simple factual findings. This interpretation promotes procedural efficiency by enabling the quick dismissal of baseless claims while ensuring potentially complex legal issues are addressed at the appropriate stage. In this case,…
-
Court of Appeal, September 18, 2024, Order concerning language of proceedings, UPC_CoA_354/2024
Criteria for the decision under Article 49(5) UPCA: Unlike Art. 49(4) UPCA, Art. 49(5) UPCA does not mention convenience as a criteria, only fairness. If a claimant is proficient in English and German, claimant’s choice of German as the language of the proceedings is merely one of convenience and thus not relevant under Art. 49(5)…
-
Court of Appeal, September 18, 2024, order concerning a preliminary objection and a request for an order pursuant to R. 361 RoP, UPC_CoA_265/2024 et. al.
Key Takeaways Referral of certain objections raised with a preliminary objection to the main proceedings can be reasonable: R. 20.2 RoP allows that objections are referred to the main proceedings. An objection to the Court’s jurisdiction for damages suffered in the UK and Northern Ireland can be dealt with in the main proceedings for case…
-
CoA, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_217/2024 et. al.
Standard and its application to the case at hand: The Court, when exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, must determine, in light of the facts and arguments brought forward by the parties, whether the financial position of the Claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order…
-
LD Düsseldorf, July 3, 2024, judgment on prior use right, award of damages and order to communicate information / lay open books, UPC_CFI_7/2023
Within the framework of Art. 28 UPCA, the user of the claimed technology can only invoke the rights granted to him by the respective national regulations of the respective contracting member states. On this basis, the existence of a right based on prior use of the invention must be substantiated for each of the protected…
