Author: Michael Horndasch

  • LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_745/2024

    Broad interpretation of motion for damages: A broadly phrased motion for damages can include damages from ancillary transactions, even if not explicitly stated. The court interpreted the Claimant’s initial motion for “all damages” to include profits from sales of sealing materials and service contracts connected to the allegedly infringing machines, based on the Claimant’s arguments…

  • LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_745/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_200/2025)

    No special treatment for amendments in counterclaims for revocation: The Rules of Procedure on amendments apply equally to counterclaims for revocation as to infringement actions; no leniency is afforded to counterclaimants. All grounds for revocation and supporting documents must be included with the initial counterclaim. Late-filed prior art faces strict scrutiny: New prior art can…

  • LD Munich, June 6, 2025, decision, UPC_CFI_324/2024, UPC_CFI_487/2024

    Burden of proof for non-infringement: If the defendant claims that infringement is impossible due to factors outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendant must prove this. The claimant does not need to address such external factors. In the decision, the defendant unsuccessfully argued that infringement was impossible due to the design of existing…

  • CD Paris, June 9, 2025, order on file inspection, UPC_CFI_309/2023

    Access to pleadings and evidence – balancing public access and confidentiality: The order follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore (10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, para 43), namely that in a decision on a request under R. 262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of obtaining the…

  • LD Düsseldorf, March 4, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_468/2024, UPC_CFI_687/2024

    Referral of Counterclaim for Revocation (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP): The Local Division Düsseldorf referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division in Milan. The Parties had unanimously requested the, and requests by all parties will be granted unless strongcounterarguments require a different decision (UPC_CFI 14/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 2 February2024 –…

  • CD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_829/2024

    Revocation action initiation (R. 42 RoP): The revocation action was initiated by the defendant against the original claimant (Virdia Inc.). Application for substitution of parties (R. 305 RoP): The original claimant (Virdia inc.) applied to substitute the party with the new patent proprietor International N&H Denmark ApS. This is supported by a 2024 patent assignment…

  • LD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_483/2024

    Amendment of case (Rule 263 RoP): The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Reasonable Diligence Requirement (Rule 263.2(a) RoP) : The claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable…

  • CD Paris, March 03, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_164/2024

    Representation (Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA): A UPC representative with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal entity cannot validly represent that entity before the UPC. The representative must be sufficiently independent to ensure fair representation in patent law matters. Remediable defect (Rule 361 RoP) : Lack of valid representation renders pleadings void but…

  • LD Düsseldorf, March 04, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_115/2024, UPC_CFI_377/2024

    Denial of additional written submissions (R. 36 RoP): The judge-rapporteur can permit additional submissions only if a justified request is made before the conclusion of the written procedure. The court denied both parties’ requests for additional written submissions due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Timing and justification of requests (R. 36 RoP) : The claimant’s…

  • LD Hamburg, 25 January 2024, decision, UPC_CFI_559935/2023

    Background: The plaintiff filed a claim for damages subsequent to a German patent infringement case in which the defendant had been found to infringe the German part of EP 1 740 740 B1. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court regarding the damages claim. This objection was allowed by the judge-rapporteur, as per…

  • LD Paris, 30 January 2024, procedural order (review R.333), UPC_CFI_230/2023

    Amount of fine in the event of a breach of a confidentiality order: The decision relates to a review according to Rule 333 RoP of point 6.) of a confidentiallity order issued by the judge rapporteur on 19 December 2023. It emphasized that while the Paris and Munich orders pertain to the same protected confidential…

  • LD Munich, 5 February 2024, decision UPC_CFI_498/2023

    Electronic service of the statement of claim: Rule 275 RoP does not permit the court to designate someone as person authorised to accept service, if that person has not notified the Registry or the claimant to be willing to accept service of the statement of claim on behalf of the defendant at an electronic address…

  • LD Paris, 24 January 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_230/2023

    Review Procedure comes before Appeal Process: Case management decisions must first be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP before they can be appealed under Rule 220 RoP (cf. UPC Court of Appeal (n°486/2023, §6). Consequently, if the review under Rule 333 RoP of a confidentiality order is still pending, a request for leave…

  • CD Paris, 22 January 2024, order, UPC_CFI_308/2023

    Background of the case: The applicant filed a revocation action against the patent at issue. On 27 November 2023, the respondent submitted a defence to revocation which was considered by as incomplete the Registry. Consequently, on 11 December 2023, the respondent requested to correct the detected deficiencies, by logding a corrected statement of defence which…

  • CD Munich, 31 January 2024, order, UPC_CFI_252/2023

    Further written submission following the interim conference to deal with a later filed document: Following the exchange of the written pleadings in accordance with Rule 43 RoP, the judge-rapporteur – after having informed the parties of his intention to do so – closed the written procedure pursuant to Rule 58 in connection with Rule 35…

  • LD Duesseldorf, 29 January 2024, UPC_CFI_463/2023

    Assessment of validity of the patent in proceedings for provisional measures : In proceedings for provisional measures, the panel must assess, based on the submissions of the parties, whether the validity challenges raise reasonable doubts about the validity of the asserted patent, Article 62(4) of the UPCA in conjunction with Rule 211.2 of the Rules…