• 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…

  • CoA, 22 June 2026, order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP), UPC-CoA 50/2026

    Commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) requires relations between defendants regarding commercial activities for the alleged infringing product or range.: These activities include research and development, manufacturing, sales, and distribution of the product or product range. Membership in the same corporate group can establish a commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) if each defendant’s activity relates to…

  • CoA, 22 June 2026, order on appeal against a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP), CoA-4/2026 and CoA-13/2026

    Article 33(1), third paragraph UPCA, establishes alternative, not exceptional, competence for the Central Division regarding defendants outside Contracting Member States.: The provisions do not limit the Central Division’s competence for non-CMS defendants, nor does its placement imply a hierarchy over local or regional divisions. The Central Division is competent for defendants domiciled outside CMS (Art.…

  • LD Düsseldorf, June 22, 2026, Decision, infringement action UPC_CFI_811/2024

    Injunctions are not subject to the five-year limitation period under Art. 72 UPCA — no time bar applies to injunctive relief.: Art. 72 UPCA caps only claims for financial compensation. The deadline runs five years from the moment the claimant learns of the last infringing act. Injunctions, by contrast, look to the future, so this…

  • Central Division (Section Munich), 22 June 2026, order, UPC_CFI_830/2024

    EPO Board of Appeal Revocation Renders UPC Revocation Action Devoid of Purpose: EPO Board of Appeal revoking a patent in full renders a parallel UPC revocation action devoid of purpose, triggering disposal under R. 360 RoP without a merits decision Stayed UPC proceedings must be resumed under R. 296.2 RoP once the triggering event —…

  • LD Munich, June 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_293/2025 & UPC_CFI_868/2025

    The date of the withdrawal declaration alone determines which version of Rule 370.9 RoP applies — and therefore the entitlement to a fee refund. When the action originally commenced does not matter.: Rule 370.9 RoP provides the legal basis for reimbursement. Its reimbursement trigger attaches to the withdrawal of the action. The rule entered into…

  • 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…