Author: Monika Harten
-
CoA, January, 26, 2026, final order concerning an application for the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential informaiton and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interest of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
-
CoA, January 26, 2026, order regarding a request pusuant to R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_917/2025
Difference between R. 262A RoP request and R. 262.2 RoP request: According to case-law, only R. 262A RoP allows the Court to restrict the use of confidential information by the opposing party and its representatives. A request under R. 262.2 RoP that certain information of written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential does not automatically…
-
CoA, January 26, 2026, Order concerning a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025, UPC_CoA_791/2025, UPC_CoA_793/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
-
LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1510/2025
Failure to comply with the time limit for application for cost decision can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights: Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge, within the time limit, an application for a decision on their respective costs, in accordance with Rule 151 of the Rules of…
-
Court of Appeal, October 3, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, UPC_CoA_683/2024
“Offering” according to Art. 25. a) UPCA: The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25 a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in the economic sense and is not to be based on the legal understanding in the sense of a binding contractual offer. The offer therefore need not…
-
Court of Appeal, June 6, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_618/2024
Deadline for filing an application for a cost decision in proceedings re provisional measures : If the successful party wishes to obtain a decision on costs, it must submit an application for the determination of costs within one month of service of the decision. The one-month period for filing an application for the determination of…
-
Court of Appeal, June 6, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_434/2025
Requirements for suspensive effect of an appeal: An appeal shall only be granted suspensive effect if the circumstances of the case justify an exception. This may be the case for orders of communication of information according to Art. 67 UPCA. However, the risk of irreparable harm, if the suspensive effect is not granted, has to…
-
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023
No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…
-
Court of Appeal, March 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_523/2024
Price erosion is an important factor to be considered when evaluating the necessity of provisional measures. : A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion. This risk…
-
Court of Appeal, November 12, 2024, order concerning the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (Art. 83 UPCA), UPC_CoA_489/2023, UPC_CoA_500/2023
If a patent has been opted out of the jurisdiction of the UPC, this opt-out can only be validly withdrawn, if no action according to Art. 32 UPCA concerning the relevant patent has commenced at a national court since June 1, 2023: The term “action” in Art. 83 UPCA refers not only to infringement and…
-
Court of Appeal, September 18, 2024, order concerning a preliminary objection and a request for an order pursuant to R. 361 RoP, UPC_CoA_265/2024 et. al.
Key Takeaways Referral of certain objections raised with a preliminary objection to the main proceedings can be reasonable: R. 20.2 RoP allows that objections are referred to the main proceedings. An objection to the Court’s jurisdiction for damages suffered in the UK and Northern Ireland can be dealt with in the main proceedings for case…
-
CoA, April 9, 2024, Order concerning clarification of the date of service, UPC_CoA_86/2024
In appeal proceedings the rules concerning service (R. 270-279 RoP) apply mutatis mutandis: In appeal proceedings, Chapter 2 – Service (Rules 270 – 279 RoP) applies mutatis mutandis. Consequently, if R. 271.1 RoP applied during the proceedings at the Court of First Instance (in short: an electronic address for service was provided by the defendant…
-
LD Munich, April 9, 2024, Order regarding R. 9 RoP extension request, UPC_CFI_501/2023
No time extension due to change of language of the proceedings: An extension of the deadline to file the statement of defense according to R. 9.3 RoP was rejected. The change of language of the proceedings one month before the deadline to file the statement of defense was not considered a justification for such an…
-
CoA, May 28, 2024, Order, UPC_CoA_22/2024
Regularly proceedings must be conducted in a way, which will allow the final oral hearing at first instace to take place within one year. As a general principle, the Court will not stay proceedings: Art. 33.10 UPCA and R. 295.a RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the fundamental right to an effective…
-
LD Dusseldorf, May 30, 2024, order pursuant R. 323 RoP, UPC_CFI_26/2024
In infringement proceedings, the position of the defendant requesting the language of the proceedings to be changed into the language of the patent is decisive, if in the overall assessment the result of the balancing of interest is the same: Art. 49.5 UPCA must be interpreted in such a way that the decision on whether…
-
LD Dusseldorf, February 16, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_463/2023
A party has to substantiate why specific persons should receive access to confidential information according to R. 262A RoP: According to R. 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons receiving access to confidential information of the other party shall be no greater than necessary. This does not necessarily include the entire team of lawyers and other…