Author: Maximilian Vieweg
-
CoA, June 29, 2026, CoA Partially Overturns Broad Evidence Production Order: Limits on Scope Clarified, UPC_CoA_57/2026
The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers.Appellant appealed,…
-
LD Brussels, June 26, 2026, Alignment of UPC evidence production with parallel UK national proceedings under R. 190 RoP, UPC_CFI_629/2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025
In an infringement action with a parallel counterclaim for revocation, the court had issued a first R. 190 RoP order (Order I), ordering the claimant to produce seven categories of evidence, which it did. The defendants then filed a second R. 190 RoP application (Application II), arguing that the evidence produced revealed further relevant material…
-
CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal decision on public access to file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information. Appellant challenged the decision,…
-
LD Düsseldorf, June 26, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1035/2026
A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP: The defendant’s formal notice reserving rights to claim for a “defect in title” of supplied components established the tangible risk needed for the intervener’s legal interest.This interest was reinforced by…
-
UPC-CoA-066/2026, Decision of the President of the Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026
An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must: a) either demonstrate that the person who filed the application to opt out, at the time of filing the application, was not the person shown in each national patent register for which the European patent was validated as the…
-
Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision
Appeals of cost decisions are subject to a limited ‘marginal review’ for reasonableness and proportionality, not a full re-assessment (R. 221 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP): This limited review is justified because the first-instance judge-rapporteur, who decides on costs in writing under R. 156.2 RoP, has managed the case throughout and is best positioned to assess…
-
Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-19/2026
Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.: A patent holder need not assert all patents in a single application for provisional measures. If sufficient information exists to file regarding some patents, waiting to consolidate all patents into…
-
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 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…