Author: Michael Horndasch

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025

    The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary…

  • LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026

    Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by…

  • LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024

    Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA): The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict…

  • LD The Hague, May 11, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_478/2025, UPC_CFI_585/2026

    Under R. 190 RoP and Art. 59(1) UPCA, evidence production orders require four cumulative conditions: plausible evidence, specified evidence within the other party’s control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality : The Court grounded this framework in prior UPC case law, specifically Winnow v Orbisk (LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_327/2024) and Oppo v Panasonic (CoA, UPC_CoA_298,299,300/2024). The conditions derive from R. 190.1…

  • LD Mannheim, January 20, 2026, application for the imposition of penalties, UPC_CFI_365/2023

    Enforcement of UPC orders in non-UPC territories requires prior recognition by national courts, but information orders can be enforced against defendants within the UPC territory (Art. 34 UPCA): The Court stresses that UPC decisions have automatic effect only within Contracting Member States. Outside that territory, they are treated as foreign judgments and must first be…

  • Central Division Paris, January 26, 2026, Order concerning review pursuant to R. 333 RoP, UPC_CFI_999/2025

    A subsidiary is not the “same party” as its parent under Art. 33(4) UPCA if it has its own genuine business activity, regardless of corporate control: “Same party” is a strict concept. Parent and subsidiary are normally distinct parties, even with 100% shareholding or strong control. They are only treated as one if their interests…

  • LD Düsseldorf, January 29, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_571/2024

    In bifurcated cases, a Local Division is bound by a Central Division’s decision amending patent claims, which then forms the basis for its infringement analysis: In a bifurcated setup, the Local Division hearing infringement cannot ignore amendments made by the Central Division in parallel revocation proceedings. Once the Milan Central Division amended EP 3 756…

  • Local Division Paris, January 23, 2026, Final order, UPC_CFI_808/2025

    A three-month preparation period for a complex provisional measures application is not an unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP, considering the technical complexity and multiple patents involved: The Court held that “delay” runs from when the applicant has, or should have, enough facts and evidence to file with a reasonable prospect of success (R. 206.2…

  • Court of Appeal, October 6, 2025, Decision regarding rejection of Preliminary Objections in Infringement Actions, UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025

    A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms…

  • 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…