Author: Markus Morgenroth

  • Court of Appeal, April 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_54/2026

    The appeal period only starts once the Court of First Instance issues a reasoned decision (Art. 77(1) UPCA, R. 224.1(a) RoP).: Referring to R. 224.1 (a) RoP and Art. 77 (1) UPCA, the CoA held that the grounds of the decision are indispensable for the appellant in order to formulate the remedy soughtpusuant to R.…

  • LD Düsseldorf, April 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_779/2024

    For the objective elements of indirect infringement, it is not necessary that both components of the patent claim do exist (Art. 26 UPCA).: Where a patent claim protects a two-component product, the objective elements of indirect infringement are satisfied if the accused component is designed to cooperate with a second component configured in accordance with…

  • LD The Hague, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1612/2025

    Classification as confidential if parties agree on confidential nature of the information. : The Court acknowledges the confidential nature of specific information after the claimant did not object to the defendant’s corresponding assertion. A pre-existing broader NDA prevents a party from imposing a narrower confidentiality circle in UPC proceedings.: The Court determined that if confidential…

  • LD Lisbon, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_858/2025

    The assessment of whether an action becomes devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) is based on the interest o the party that filed the action. : The court assesses whether an action is devoid of purpose based on the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (R. 360 RoP). The defendant’s interest is not autonomously considered in this…

  • LD Paris, April 10, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_301/2025

    The RoP lack specific pleading rules for a FRAND defence.: Unlike in case of a counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 et seq. RoP) or an application to amend the patent (R. 30 et seq. RoP), where the number and content of the pleadings are precisely set out, the Rules of Procedure do not contain respective…

  • LD Brussels, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025; UPC_CFI_629/2025

    Evidence production applications (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP) require four cumulative conditions: reasonably available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.: The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. This condition is assessed on a prima facie basis and is twofold, considering(a) whether the requesting party presented…

  • LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025

    Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).: The Court reasoned that the reversal of the main decision removes the legal basis for the initial cost order, making previously paid amounts recoverable in the subsequent cost proceedings.…

  • Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026

    The Court of Appeal can grant suspensive effect to an order pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP as Art. 74 UPCA prevails over R. 223.5 RoP.: The Court confirmed its established case law that in case of a conflict between the UPCA and Rules of Procedure , the UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP), allowing it to…

  • LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025

    The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over non-EU/UPC defendants when alleged infringing acts occur exclusively in a third country, as there is no connection to the UPC territory.: Based on Art. 4, 7(2), and 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it was not “appropriate” under Art. 71b(2) to extend jurisdiction, as the…

  • LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_628/2024; UPC_CFI_125/2025

    Infringement of a medical device requires a potential use to be lege artis. A use that damages the device cannot establish infringement.: The claimant argued for an infringing use that required piercing the device’s mesh. The Court held this was not a proper, professional use but an emergency measure, and thus irrelevant for the infringement…

  • LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026

    Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused…

  • LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024

    For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty…

  • LD Düsseldorf, August 5, 2025, Default Judgment, UPC_CFI_318/2025

    Default judgment is available if the defendant fails to respond (R. 355 RoP, R. 23 RoP): The court may issue a default judgment if the defendant does not file a statement of defense within the prescribed period, provided service of the complaint was validly effected. Service at trade fair booths is valid for UPC proceedings…

  • LD Mannheim, August 4, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_162/2024

    Discretionary extension of time periods is interpreted narrowly (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): The court will only grant extensions for procedural deadlines with caution, prioritizing efficient proceedings and avoiding undue delay. Vacation-related absences may justify short extensions, but only if sufficiently substantiated (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): General references to staff absences or international coordination are insufficient; only specific,…

  • LD Mannheim, August 6, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_336/2025

    Confidentiality of attorney billing records in cost proceedings (Rule 262A RoP, Art. 58 UPCA): Information about the detailed breakdown of lawyers’ hours worked is considered confidential, as such information is protected by attorney-client privilege. Access restrictions to confidential information cannot be limited to legal representatives alone without consent (Rule 262A.6 RoP): Restricting access to confidential…

  • LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_127/2024

    Discretion to separate proceedings, Rule 303(2) RoP: The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged. In this case, the court identified arguments both for and against seperation. While the proceedings against some defendants…

  • LD Düsseldorf, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_336/2024, UPC_CFI_605/2024

    Request for security of legal costs under Rule 158 RoP: Defendants requested security for legal costs, citing the Claimant’s financial instability and potential difficulties in enforcing a cost decision. The Claimant argued its solvency, highlighting progress in capital raising and debt restructuring initiatives. Defendants argued enforcement challenges due to the Claimant being based in Singapore,…