Author: Karin Bek
-
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_519/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2025
Advertising materials are not covered by Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and therefore cannot be ordered destroyed: The Court granted destruction of infringing products, but expressly excluded advertising materials. It held that Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA covers products and the materials and equipment relevant to their production, not mere promotional materials depicting the products. The Court also refused…
-
CoA, March 18, 2026, Order concerning an appeal against an order denying a request under R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_930/2025
Information disclosed to the other party without a confidentiality restriction will generally lose protection as a trade secret or other confidential information: The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated without restriction. Where information has been…
-
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning review of an ex parte order for inspection, UPC_CoA_3/2026
In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it: The Court of Appeal emphasizes that, in ex parte proceedings, the applicant’s duty is not limited to presenting the facts supporting the requested inspection. Under R. 192.3 RoP, the applicant must also…
-
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_135/2024, UPC_CFI_477/2024
In the FRAND context, a dominant position may exist where consumers expect standard-compliant smart TVs to decode all video codecs covered by the standard: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard cannot realistically be marketed without…
-
Brussels LD, March 18, 2026, Procedural Order (R. 158 RoP)(II), UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
The Brussels Local Division did not consider enforcement of a UPC costs order in Costa Rica to be unduly burdensome on the evidence presented: The Court held that the defendants had not shown that recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica were “unduly burdensome” within the meaning of the UPC case law. In particular, the…
-
CD Milan, March 13, 2026, Order on Application for Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_927/2025
Key takeaway Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA / R. 158 RoP may be ordered where the claimant’s own financial situation gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a future costs award may not be recoverable or enforceable.: When assessing security for costs, the UPC looks at the financial position of the…
-
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning a Preliminary Objection, UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
A preliminary objection may also be deferred to the main proceedings by the panel, not only by the judge-rapporteur: The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone. Where the matter has been referred to…
-
CoA, March 13, 2026, Order on Preliminary Objections Concerning International Jurisdiction, UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025, UPC_CoA_925/2025
The Statement of claim must already set out the facts and legal arguments establishing the UPC’s jurisdiction.: The Court of Appeal makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish the UPC’s jurisdiction. That applies especially where the claimant…
-
CD Milan, March 13, 2026, Order and Decision on Costs, UPC_CFI_722/2025
A revocation action becomes devoid of purpose once the patent has been finally revoked in EPO opposition proceedings: The Milan Central Division held that, once the Opposition Division had revoked the patent in its entirety and that decision had become final because no appeal was filed, the UPC revocation action no longer served any purpose…
-
LD Paris, November 21, 2025, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_697-2025
Clarification of “Unreasonable Delay” under Rule 211.4 RoP: The LD Paris clarifies that the relevant moment for assessing delay is the point in time when the applicant knew or should have known about the upcoming infringing act – not when infringement has already occurred, thereby aligning with other UPC case law (cf. UPC CoA ORD_44387/2024,…
-
CoA, November 27, 2025, decision regarding the admissibility of an appeal withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and the mootness of the intervenor’s appeal, UPC_CoA_70/2025, UPC_CoA_001/2025
An intervenor cannot contradict the party they support: The Court confirms that an intervenor must not act in contradiction to the supported party’s procedural acts or declarations. Consequently, the intervenor cannot oppose that party’s withdrawal of the appeal. The intervenor has no independent appellate standing: Procedural steps by an intervenor are permissible only insofar as…
-
LD Mannheim, July 25, 2025, Procedural Order on Enforcement of Saisie Order, UPC_CFI_636/2025
Saisie Order is Limited to Systems and Evidence Physically Available at Designated Premises: The inspection may only cover what is physically present at the premises explicitly named in the court order. A defendant is not obliged to grant access to systems or data stored outside the specified premises, nor to coordinate with personnel or infrastructure…
-
LD Mannheim, July 29, 2025, Order on Request to Dismiss Infringement Action Due to Lack of Domestic Representative
Domestic Representative under German Patent Act Not Required for UPC Proceedings: The LD Mannheim clarified that Section 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), which requires foreign patentees to appoint a domestic representative for proceedings before German authorities, does not apply to infringement actions before the UPC. The Court emphasized that the UPC is governed…