Author: Max Niklas Weiler
-
LD Düsseldorf, March 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Requests for further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP are assessed through a two-pronged balancing test weighing the party’s reasons against the impact on proceedings and delay risk.: The Court must take into account the reasons put forward by the requesting party as to why further pleadings are necessary. The Court must also weigh the…
-
LD Milan, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_141/2026
Rule 14.2(b) RoP is an exception to the general language-of-proceedings rules and must be interpreted restrictively (Rule 14.2(b) RoP, Art. 49(1), Art. 49(2) UPCA).: The provision requires proceedings to be conducted in the official language of the Contracting Member State only if two specific conditions are both met. As an exception, this rule cannot be…
-
Court of Appeal, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_934/2025
Rule 265 RoP applies to applications for provisional measures, not only to “actions” in the narrow sense.: The Court of Appeal clarified that the term “action” (Klage) in Rule 265.1 RoP encompasses applications for provisional measures. The withdrawal mechanism is therefore not limited to main proceedings such as infringement or revocation actions but extends to…
-
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Decision, UPC_COA_895/2025 & UPC_COA_896/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted under R. 265(1) RoP where the respondent consents and has no legitimate interest in the action being decided.: Under R. 265.1 RoP, a party may withdraw its action as long as no final decision has been rendered. The withdrawal shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest…
-
Court of Appeal, March 10, 2026, Order, Retroactive Time Extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP – UPC_CoA_37/2026
R. 9.3(a) RoP, not R. 320 RoP, governs deadline extensions for written submissions in ongoing proceedings: R. 320 RoP applies only where missing a time limit causes a party to lose a substantive right or means of redress, such as the right to initiate appeal proceedings or to challenge default judgments. Failure to meet a…
-
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 – Provisional Measures for Hair Care Appliance Attachment Patent
Claim construction must balance function and structure: interpreting structural claim features solely by their function is insufficient; the physical and spatial configuration taught by the patent must equally be considered (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on Interpretation).: In the specific case the Court of Appeal held that an “overlap” in the patent claim must be geometrically…
-
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, application to withdraw infringement action (R. 265 RoP), UPC_CFI_541/2025
Practical guidance on withdrawing an action against a single defendant in a multi-party case: The claimant had filed an infringement suit against two entities, Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC. However, after facing difficulties serving the claim and being informed by the first defendant that the second was a “non-existent company,” Leap Tools moved to withdraw…
-
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, order re inspection and preserve evidence, UPC_CFI_885/2025
The court ordered the full disclosure of an expert’s inspection report to the patentee because the defendant failed to identify any trade secrets within the given deadline, confirming that parties must actively claim confidentiality to receive protection: Following a court-ordered inspection (saisie-contrefaçon) at a trade fair, an independent expert prepared a detailed report on the…
-
LD Düsseldorf, November 19, 2025, order re confidentiality (R. 262A RoP), UPC_CFI_539/2024
In response to confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent to an application for preservation of evidence (the alleged infringer), the court may order a partial redaction of the expert report before its release to the applicant (the patent holder): The court mandated the redaction of specific commercial data. This includes prices and order quantities, which…