Author: Maximilian Vieweg
-
LD Munich, July 16, 2025, Order concerning an application for compensation
Withdrawal of Actions: Parties may withdraw actions and counterclaims before a final decision if there’s no legitimate interest in continuing according to R. 265.1 RoP, as is the case with settlements.In this case, both the claimant and the defendant withdrew their respective action and counterclaim after reaching a settlement. Withdrawal of Compensation Applications: Applications for…
-
LD Mannheim, July 16, 2025, Order concerning request for the extension of time periods
Extension of time periods requires balancing the interests of the parties, the court, and the public (R. 9.3(a) RoP): Extensions are granted only in justified exceptional circumstances to ensure efficient proceedings. The court considers whether the requested extension will jeopardize the preparation of the oral hearing (reason 2.c)). In this case, the Defendants’ request for…
-
CoA, Order of July 12, 2025, R 220.2 RoP Appeal on security for costs
Security for Costs: The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s order requiring the appellant to provide €300,000 as security for the respondent’s costs (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).The Court emphasized the legitimate concern about the appellant’s ability to pay costs.The amount was deemed consistent with the value of the case.The Court…
-
CoA, July 12, 2025, Decision concerning application for a decision by default (R. 355 RoP)
R 355.2 RoP limited to a decision by default against the Defendant: R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought “against the defendant of the claim “. It does not apply when a decision by default is requested by the defendant against the claimant because the claimant failed to take a…
-
LD Milan, April 7, 2025, Order concerning R. 263 and R. 265 RoP, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Rule 263(3) RoP allows for unconditional limitation of claims, covering both the relief sought and the cause of action.: Rule 263(3) RoP applies if a patentee asserts a plurality of patents and then renounces one of them. Therefore, Rule 265 RoP concerning the case in which theClaimant withdraws the action – all its claims –…
-
LD Munich, April 4, 2025, Decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_501/2023
Jurisdiction over multiple defendants with commercial relationship and same infringement (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).: Multiple defendants can be sued at the domicile, principal place of business, or place of business of one defendant if they have a commercial relationship and the action concerns the same alleged infringement (“anchor-defendant”). Headnote 1 of the decision clarifies: In the…
-
LD Milan, April 8, 2025, Order concerning R. 19 RoP (adopting CJEU’s reasoning in BSH/Electrolux), UPC_CFI_792/2024
The UPC is considered a court of a Member State.: The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014 (“Brussels Ibis Regulation”). The interpretation provided by the CJEU applies to the UPC as if…
-
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2025, Decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_50/2024
Claim Interpretation of Product-by-Process Claims : Product-by-process claims should be interpreted based on the technical features imparted to the product by the process, not the process itself (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC). The court held that the key feature in this case was the ability to create a structural…
-
LD Munich, December 18, 2024, withdrawal of opt-out, exhaustion, and FRAND defense, UPC_CFI_9/2023
Withdrawal of opt-out effective if CMS workflow is used: The Court held that Claimant’s withdrawal of the opt-out was effective as Claimant used the online workflow in the Case Management System (CMS) according to Rule 5.7 RoP. It is not mandatory to use the provided template which is merely a non-binding support tool. The withdrawal…
-
LD Paris, December 19, 2024, Order, UPC_CFI_358/2023
No Stay of Execution from the Court of First Instance: The Court rejected Claimant’s request for a stay of enforcement of its first instance decision during the appeal period as this decision is solely subject to the competence of the Court of Appeal according to Art. 74 UPCA and Rule 223 RoP. In such a…
-
CD Paris, December 18, 2024, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_454/2023
Standstill provisions do not impact UPC’s jurisdiction: Even if a standstill provision requiring pre-suit notification is breached, this does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction or the admissibility of the action. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), but that such…
-
CoA Luxembourg, December 17, 2024, Application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_810/2024
Suspensive Effect of Appeal: The primary legal issue revolves around the suspensive effect of an appeal, specifically under Rule 223.4 RoP, which allows for suspensive effect in cases of extreme urgency. Requirement of Extreme Urgency: The Court emphasized that the applicant must demonstrate the existence of an extreme urgency to justify suspensive effect. In this…
-
CD Munich, December 17, 2024, Order, UPC 252/2023
Release of Security for Costs Requires Independent Financial Standing: The UPC held that R. 352.2 RoP also applies to the release of a security for legal costs, even though this is not explicitly mentioned in Rule 158 RoP, which governs the imposition of such securities. The Court ultimately rejected Claimant’s request to release the security…
-
CD Milan, October 1, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_380/2024
High threshold for intervention in interim injunction proceedings: The Court rejected the request (here: from Menarini) for intervention, emphasizing that Article 313 RoP permits intervention in interim injunction proceedings only under exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that a third party might be affected by the outcome of the proceedings is not sufficient. Rather, the third…
-
LD Munich, October 2, 2024, Substantive Order, UPC_CFI_153/2024
Patent pool administrators have a direct legal interest in litigations concerning patents within their pools: The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit. This interest stems from…
-
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2024, Ordner in relation to R. 220.3 RoP and deadlines in R29(d) RoP, UPC_CoA_543/2024
Deadlines when Confidential Information are included: This decision clarifies that the deadline for a Defendant’s reply (in German “Duplik”) under Rule 29(d) RoP, when confidential information is involved, begins upon filing the initial Plaintiff’s reply, even if redacted. The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging differing practices across Local Divisions, found no misinterpretation of the RoP…