Author: Markus Ackermann

  • CoA, June 2, 2026, appeal judgment in infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al

    On international jurisdiction: The CoA confirms long-arm jurisdiction for European patents in accordance with the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22), i.e. where the Defendant is domiciled in a UPC contracting member state (headnotes 5-8). In this course, the CoA clarifies that the UPC cannot decline jurisdiction in such case, confirming the CJEU’s decision…

  • LD Lisbon, May 26, 2026, Order on applications under R. 360 and 361 RoP, UPC_CFI_850/2026

    R. 360 RoP requires that an event occured after the action was filed, rendering the action inadmissible or unfounded – this requirement is not fulfilled if the Defendant relies on an own earlier action requesting the Court to adjudicate FRAND-compliant terms for a cross-license agreement potentially concerning the patent-in-suit.: [6] Pursuant to R. 360 RoP,…

  • LD Paris, May 29, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_130/2025

    Preservation of evidence: alignment between Claimant’s representatives and the expert before seizure does not affect impartiality: One defendant requested that an expert report submitted to the Judge Rapporteur at the end of seizure measures and the inspection of the defendant’s premises be declared null and void. They argued that there had been a preparatory meeting…

  • CoA, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CoA_48/2026

    The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for…

  • LD Düsseldorf, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_998/2026 et al

    When assessing the requirement for a procedural security, namely the question whether the Claimant has “sufficient means” to compensate the Defendant for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings, only the financial situation of the Claimant should be taken into consideration, but not the financial situation of the holding company behind the Claimant.: 7. The…

  • LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025

    Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s…

  • LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025

    No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade…

  • LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025

    No Default Decision Despite Non-Response: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application…

  • LD Munich, decision, december 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_437/2024, UPC_CFI_681/2024

    Squeeze of claim interpretation and added matter: Claim interpretation Principles The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law (Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_405/2024, 19 June 2025 – Alexion/Amgen). Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but must construe the claim independently (Court of Appeal,…

  • LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025

    The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide…

  • LD The Hague, August 29, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2024

    Claim interpretation: Feature 1.6 of claim 1 in the patent-in-suit (EP 1651838) was central to both infringement and validity. The dispute between the parties concerned, inter alia, the meaning of the wording “turning movements” in feature 1.6. The opposing views: o     City Glass: “Turning movement” means an actual rotation (not just a torque). o     Maars:…

  • LD Duesseldorf, May 8 2025, Decision concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2778423 B1

    Background of the case: The Claimant brought an infringement action against the Defendant who filed a Counterclaim for Revocation, alleging a lack of enablement, a lack of novelty, and a lack of inventive step. However, they raised certain novelty and inventive-step objections for the first time in their Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim…