Author: Michael-Wolfgang Waschak

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 12, 2026, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_723/2025

    Non-infringement arguments which are for the first time submitted with the Rejoinder can be rejected as late-field: If a defendant has not (timely) contested that the challenged embodiments infringe the patent in suit and if the court follows the claim interpretation of claimant, infringement will be assumed for the purposes of the proceedings for provisional…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024

    If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025

    Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…

  • LD Milan, February 10, 2026, cost decision, UPC_CFI_1738/2025

    An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs: The Court rejected the Applicants’ argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an “arbitrary limitation”. It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety,…

  • LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025

    According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…

  • LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

    The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…

  • Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-937/2025

    A stay of UPC proceedings pending a parallel EPO opposition is discretionary, even if a rapid decision of the EPO is expected: Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected…

  • LD The Hague, February 18, 2026, application to amend, UPC_CFI_616/2025

    An amendment to include a new product is permissible, but may be unnecessary if the initial claim for injunctive relief is already broadly worded: The Court found the claimant’s request for relief against infringing products “and/or further versions or variants thereof” was already broad enough to cover the new product. Even if one would consider…

  • Court of Appeal, February 18, 2026, suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_19/2026

    Applications for suspensive effect against interim cost awards are admissible in provisional measures cases: The Court clarified that the prohibition on suspensive effect in R. 223.5 RoP does not apply to appeals against interim cost awards (R. 220.1(c) RoP), which are considered orders under Art. 62 UPCA. Suspensive effect is an exception granted only (i)…

  • Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, final decision, UPC_CoA_302/2025

    Pursuant to Art. 75(1) UPCA, where the CoA sets aside a decision of the CFI, it shall, as a rule, give a final decision itself: The CoA, after considering the appeal of the Claimant (and revocation defendant) against the judgment of the CFI in the counterclaim for revocation to be well-founded, must, in order to…

  • CD Milan, October 23, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CFI_497/2024

    The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order…

  • CoA, October 30, 2025, order on application for security for costs, UPC_CoA_8/2025

    An application for security for costs may be filed after the summon for oral hearing has been issued: An application for a security for costs may be filed at any time during proceedings (R. 158.1 RoP first sentence) and may equally be filed in first instance and appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_328/2024, Order of 26 August 2024,…

  • 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…