Author: Julia Bernatska

  • CoA, May 22, 2026, order concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_61/2026

    Signing and lodging documents pursuant to R. 4.1 RoP: The procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature. It is not sufficient to simply “sign submission” in the CMS after the upload of a submission. This is necessary to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not…

  • CoA, May 27, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025

    Further substantiation of already conclusive first-instance submissions is not “new” on appeal: The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested…

  • CoA, May 26, 2026, order to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026

    Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect: The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production…

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024

    Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of…

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025

    The four-step equivalence test applied by LD The Hague forms a coherent whole suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalence.: 1.Technical equivalence Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context? 2. Fair protection for the patentee Is extending the protection of…

  • CoA, May 26, 2026, security for costs, UPC_CoA_74/2026

    discretionary review requires the impugned order to be manifestly erroneous : The claimant presented a number of reasons why, in its view, the impugned order is incorrect, including new arguments not raised at first instance. It failed, however, to demonstrate or even argue that the alleged errors are manifest. facts and arguments not raised cannot…

  • CoA, February 9, 2026, decision concerning a decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect

    Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012: Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 requires a patent to be granted for all UPC Member States; a “carve-out” for non-designated states is not permissible. Division UPC Court of Appeal UPC number UPC_CoA_8/2026 Type of proceedings Appeal against a decision concerning an Application to annul a decision…

  • LD Hamburg, October 21, 2025, order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_553/2025

    Competence of LD Hamburg, Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA: imminent infringement: To establish jurisdiction, at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts in the country in question is necessary. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer…

  • LD The Hague, October 21, 2025, decision by default, UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024

    Decision by default: According to R. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against the defendant may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. In view of this, LD The Hague stated that it…

  • LD Düsseldorf, October 17, 2025, Order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_515/2025

    Regular order in the PI proceedings (no decision by default) if the defendant does not lodge an objection within the deadline set by the Court: The Court may issue a regular order for provisional measures based on the application for provisional measures, rather than a decision by default, when a defendant chooses not to lodge…

  • Court of Appeal, June 26, 2025, order concerning security of costs and disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose

    When an applicant withdraws its request for provisional measures on appeal, the action becomes devoid of purpose. The Court may then dispose of the action under R. 360 of RoP.: The extent of the legal review in relation to costs (Art. 69 (1) UPCA) where the action is disposed of according to R. 360 RoP…

  • LD Munich, June 20, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_149/2024, UPC_CFI_127/2024

    In the case of service outside the UPCA Contracting Member States, preliminary objections must be filed within one month of the actual date of service.: R. 271.6 (b) RoP stating that a statement of claim shall in general be deemed to be served on the addressee on the tenth day following posting does not apply…

  • Court of Appeal, June 23, 2025, order concerning an application for the revocation of provisional measures, UPC_CoA_286/2025

    Court fees are considered paid on time if the transfer order is given to the bank when lodging the pleading or application, provided the payment is subsequently received.: This interpretation of Art. 70(2) UPCA and R. 371 RoP ensures that the lodging party has control and can easily verify the timely payment. In view of…

  • LD Munich, March 18, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_339/2024

    Neither the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law nor the alleged violation of the right to a lawful judge constitutes a valid ground for a preliminary objection.: According to Rule 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection is strictly limited to the following formal procedural grounds: (a) the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, (b)…

  • LD The Hague, November 22, 2024, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_239/2023

    Assessment of the scope of protection in infringement cases in two steps: (i) literal infringement; (ii) infringement by equivalence: The UPCA contains no provision on the infringement by equivalence, however, Art. 2 of the Protocol to Art. 69 EPC makes clear that equivalence must be considered: “For the purpose of determining the extent of protection…

  • LD Munich, August 27, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_74/2024

    Direct infringement of a device claim : In certain cases, there could be a direct infringement of a device claim if the patent infringer appropriates the actions of its customer in the sense of an “extended workbench” (in German: “verlängerte Werkbank”) and it would be unreasonable to hold the infringer liable only for indirect patent…

  • LD Hamburg, May 14, 2024, order, UPC_CFI_151/2024

    Security for costs in the proceedings for provisional measures: Art. 69.4 UPCA explicitly refers to proceedings for the application of provisional measures pursuant to Art. 62 UPCA. R. 158 RoP is thus also applicable in the proceedings for provisional measures. The request for a security for costs is in line with the EU law and…