Author: Karin Bek
-
CoA, June 29, 2026, CoA Partially Overturns Broad Evidence Production Order: Limits on Scope Clarified, UPC_CoA_57/2026
The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers.Appellant appealed,…
-
LD Brussels, June 26, 2026, Alignment of UPC evidence production with parallel UK national proceedings under R. 190 RoP, UPC_CFI_629/2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025
In an infringement action with a parallel counterclaim for revocation, the court had issued a first R. 190 RoP order (Order I), ordering the claimant to produce seven categories of evidence, which it did. The defendants then filed a second R. 190 RoP application (Application II), arguing that the evidence produced revealed further relevant material…
-
CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal decision on public access to file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information. Appellant challenged the decision,…
-
LD Düsseldorf, June 26, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1035/2026
A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP: The defendant’s formal notice reserving rights to claim for a “defect in title” of supplied components established the tangible risk needed for the intervener’s legal interest.This interest was reinforced by…
-
UPC-CoA-066/2026, Decision of the President of the Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026
An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must: a) either demonstrate that the person who filed the application to opt out, at the time of filing the application, was not the person shown in each national patent register for which the European patent was validated as the…
-
Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision
Appeals of cost decisions are subject to a limited ‘marginal review’ for reasonableness and proportionality, not a full re-assessment (R. 221 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP): This limited review is justified because the first-instance judge-rapporteur, who decides on costs in writing under R. 156.2 RoP, has managed the case throughout and is best positioned to assess…
-
Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-19/2026
Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.: A patent holder need not assert all patents in a single application for provisional measures. If sufficient information exists to file regarding some patents, waiting to consolidate all patents into…
-
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,…