• Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CoA_126/2026

    Even if the defendant has filed the counterclaim for revocation only conditionally, the defendant may still file an appeal: A defendant who has filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation has a legitimate interest in appealing a first-instance decision refusing to rule on an action for revocation, even after it has been determined that there was…

  • Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_40/2026

    No further pleadings or evidence are permitted once the appellate proceedings have reached an advanced procedural stage: The Court confirmed its broad case-management discretion to prevent additional written submissions at a late stage, consistent with the RoP’s objective of efficient, front-loaded proceedings. An appellant’s request to disregard a witness statement and related submissions as late-filed,…

  • LD Munich, September 15, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025

    Digital simulations cannot replace direct examination of the attacked products to prove non-infringement: The defendant relied on simulations rather than examining the real attacked optics, despite having had ample opportunity to do so since service of the statement of claim. The Court held this choice does not justify a further briefing right or additional evidence-taking…

  • Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Re-establishment of Rights for Appeal Concerning Conditional Revocation Counterclaims

    Re-establishment of rights (R. 320.1 RoP) requires showing that appeal deadlines were missed despite all due care due to reasons beyond control. Under Rule 320.1 RoP, a party may obtain re-establishment of rights if it missed a statutory deadline despite exercising all due care required by the circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate that the failure…

  • Court of Appeal, September 29, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Calculation and Reimbursement of Court Fees for Revocation Counterclaim Appeals

    Appeals concerning revocation counterclaims incur first-instance fees plus 10% under R. 228 and R. 370.5(a) RoP, subject to a pre-increase cap. Under Rule 228 and Rule 370.5(a) RoP, the fee for appealing a revocation counterclaim under Rule 220.1(a) RoP equals the first-instance counterclaim fee increased by 10%. This fee mirrors the infringement fee based on…

  • Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, UPC_CoA_79/2026

    Withdrawal before service on respondents is admissible; respondents need not be heard under R. 265.1 RoP if they have no legitimate interest in continuation.: Since the statement of appeal was still undergoing formal examination under R. 229 RoP and had not yet been served on the respondents, the respondents had no legitimate interest in having…

  • CoA, July 10, 2026, request for a discretionary review, UPC_CoA_95/2026

    Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP requires demonstrating manifest error or a fundamental question of law with systemic implications purely case.: The Court of Appeal confirmed the standard established in earlier decisions: discretionary review is available only where the contested order is manifestly erroneous or raises a fundamental legal question with broader implications for the…

  • Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_473/2025

    Defending Dependent Claims Without Formal Amendment: A patentee can defend dependent claims without filing a formal application to amend under Rule 30 RoP; R. 30 RoP does not require that the patentee submit an auxiliary request as a prerequisite for defending dependent claims. An Application to amend the patent is only required if the patentee…

  • Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_12/2026

    A party or its representative may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing, based on an audio recording pursuant to R. 115 RoP. When producing a private transcript, a party or its representative may obtain support of an assistant or support staff, such as a stenographer, working in the presence and under the supervision…

  • Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_302/2025, CoA_305/2025

    Cost determination proceedings must always be initiated at the Court of First Instance, regardless of whether costs arise from first instance or appeal (R. 150 et seq. RoP): The cost determination procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP is a separate proceeding that must be filed with the Court of First Instance. The RoP does…

  • Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CoA_409/2025, UPC_CoA_410/2025, UPC_CoA_420/2025

    Logging into the UPC’s Case Management System does not constitute an “entering of an appearance” to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.: The mere access to the file, before any active step or defense, is however not sufficient to establish a deliberate choice regarding the jurisdiction of the UPC. Another step is required in…

  • Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_899/2025

    Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).: By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Defendant in first instance has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and…

  • LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026

    A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP. : Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the defendants’ request for alignment of the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is…

  • CD Paris, March 30, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_258/2025

    The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features.: Following the revocation of an independent claim, the patent proprietor may amend the patent to recast surviving dependent claims into independent form, provided the resulting configuration complies…

  • Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_898/2025

    Asserting a patent in a non-registered claim version is not categorically excluded in provisional measures proceedings; admissibility depends on the circumstances of each case (R. 211.2 RoP).: There is no automatic additional burden on the Appellee from assertion of a non-registered version. Whether the specific version is suitable for provisional measures is a case-by-case determination.…

  • CoA, August 25, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_758/2015 and UPC_CoA_759/2025

    Application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP): Although R.223.5 RoP provides that there shall be no suspensive effect for an order pursuant to (amongst other) R.220.2 RoP, the Court of Appeal considers that this does not preclude that an application for suspensive effect is lodged – and if justified, granted – for such orders based…

  • LD Munich, August 26, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_487/2023

    Public access to the register: A law firm, as a member of the public, shall be granted access to pleadings and evidence upon submission of a reasoned request, pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP. A reasoned request, in this sense, is a request that not only specifies the pleadings and evidence to which access is sought,…