Author: Michael Kobler
-
LD Mannheim, January 30, 2026, Order by the Panel on application for the imposition of penalties, UPC_CFI_365/2023
A penalty order pursuant to R. 354.4 RoP may be issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone.: It is noted that Defendants’ opinion, that an Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone was not allowable, is not supported. The Panel has seen the Order of the CoA, to which Defendants refer. However, the Panel respectfully invites to reconsider…
-
LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Cost decision, UPC_CFI_658/2025
1. Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately, even though the decision on the reimbursability of these costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. Therefore, the ceilings for the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately (follow up to UPC_CFI_121/2025…
-
LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Procedural orders of good service of PI decisions, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025
The publication of an order on the Court’s website, of which the Defendant had been notified via email, constitutes good service if there are no other effective means of informing the Defendant of the preliminary injunction and the ordering of further provisional measures.: In both cases, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025, the Court had previously ordered in…
-
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Procedural order re. adjournment of proceedings, UPC_CFI_414/2024
R. 114 RoP is applicable only in exceptional situations where, during the oral hearing, a specific issue or a specific in-depth investigation is identified as necessary and cannot reasonably be completed within the existing hearing slot. : Claimant’s request to reopen the oral hearing and to set a further date for the oral hearing was…
-
Court of Appeal, December 2, 2025, procedural order re. application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_894/2025
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending…
-
Court of Appeal, December 1, 2025, appeal against an order re. change of the language of proceedings
When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account. Relevant circumstances should primarily be related to the specific case and the position of the parties themselves, in particular the position of the defendant (headnote).: The…
-
LD Brussels, December 4, 2025, decision on withdrawal of infringement action and recoverable costs, UPC_CFI_415/2025
As the Court previously held (cf. LD Düsseldorf – UPC_CFI_355/2025 and UPC_CFI_186/2025 – Fujifilm/Kodak), the focus of appropriateness “is primarily on the amount of costs incurred” and this from an ex ante perspective. When assessing these costs, elements which could be taken into consideration (having regard to the specifical circumstances of a withdrawal of an…
-
Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025, appeal against an order re. penalty payments, UPC_CoA_699/2025
System of penalties under the Rules of Procedure, specifics of a penalty order (R. 354.3, R.354.4 RoP): Pursuant to R. 354.3 RoP an order or decision may include an order for the forfeiture of a penalty sum in case of (future) non-compliance with an order (hereinafter: a penalty order). Although this must be considered the…
-
LD Düsseldorf, October 16, 2025, order re. service of PI request under the Hague Convention
If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service informs the Court several months after the request that service cannot be effected because the defendant does not exist at the provided address, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for…
-
Court of Appeal, July 3, 2025, order re. members of confidentiality club, UPC_CoA_221/2025 et al
The number of US attorneys authorized to access confidential information shall not be greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of both Appellant and Respondents to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.: According to R. 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no…
-
Court of Appeal, July 3, 2025, order re. appeal against cost decision, UPC_CoA_153/2025
The cost decision after the withdrawal of an action (or a request for provisional measures) is made in accordance with the general regulations in Rules 150 et seqq. RoP.: According to Rule 265.2(c) RoP, the Court shall “issue a cost decision in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5” in case a withdrawal is permitted. This…
-
LD Munich, July 3, 2025, infringement action, UPC_CFI_448/2025
Change of language of proceedings prioritizes fairness and the defendant’s position: The language of proceedings may be changed to the language in which the patent was granted if fairness and the defendant’s situation so require. The defendant’s position is decisive, especially where both parties are international and English is the common business and technical language.…
-
Court of Appeal, July 3, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CoA_178/2025
Separate court fees are required for appeals in revocation actions and counterclaims for revocation: Revocation actions and counterclaims for revocation are treated as separate actions, even if jointly decided in a single document by the Court of First Instance. Each action requires its own appeal fee. Withdrawal of actions is permitted before a final decision:…
-
LD Munich, June 27, 2025, infringement action, UPC_CFI_148/2024, UPC_CFI_503/2024
Single closure date for written procedure ensures fairness and efficiency: The Court confirmed that only one closure date for written submissions is permitted, rejecting the defendant’s request for separate dates for infringement and revocation proceedings. Admissibility of amended requests and burden of proof addressed: The Court found that any uncertainty about which requests and arguments…
-
LD Mannheim, June 27, 2025, request for time extension, UPC_CFI_344/2025
Harmonization of time limits is justified for efficient case management in multi-defendant cases: The Court aligned time limits for statements of defense for defendants represented by the same counsel and with close corporate ties to avoid procedural complications and promote efficiency. Harmonized time limit for statements of defense also applies to any counterclaim for revocation:…
-
LD Munich, July 3, 2025, procedural order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_127/2024 et al
Even if the Defendant of an infringement action is, formally, at the same time the Claimant of a counterclaim for revocation, they are entitled to a security also for procedural costs caused by filing the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP.: According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in…
-
LD Munich, July 2, 2025, procedural order on security for procedural costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_245/2025
An intervener on the Defendant’s side does not have to provide security for procedural costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. : While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to…