Author: Nadine Westermeyer

  • Court of Appeal, April 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_54/2026

    The appeal period only starts once the Court of First Instance issues a reasoned decision (Art. 77(1) UPCA, R. 224.1(a) RoP).: Referring to R. 224.1 (a) RoP and Art. 77 (1) UPCA, the CoA held that the grounds of the decision are indispensable for the appellant in order to formulate the remedy soughtpusuant to R.…

  • LD Paris, April 16, 2026, Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_138/2025, UPC_CFI_522/2025

    Party-affiliated affidavits are valuable technical information but lack the probative value of independent expert opinions (R. 181(2) RoP).: Both parties submitted affidavits from current or former employees. The Court treated these as witness statements rather than expert opinions, but nonetheless considered them valuable technical information from persons with industry experience in the relevant technical area.…

  • LD Mannheim, April 16, 2026, Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_819/2024 and UPC_CFI_414/2025

    Claim construction: The patent is its own lexicon, “purposive non-use” excludes intent not contamination, and claim features can be technically interdependent.: The term “alkali-free” was interpreted not as a complete absence but as a concentration below a specific threshold defined in the patent itself. The prohibition on “using neither arsenic nor antimony” was held to…

  • LD Düsseldorf, April 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_779/2024

    For the objective elements of indirect infringement, it is not necessary that both components of the patent claim do exist (Art. 26 UPCA).: Where a patent claim protects a two-component product, the objective elements of indirect infringement are satisfied if the accused component is designed to cooperate with a second component configured in accordance with…

  • LD The Hague, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1612/2025

    Classification as confidential if parties agree on confidential nature of the information. : The Court acknowledges the confidential nature of specific information after the claimant did not object to the defendant’s corresponding assertion. A pre-existing broader NDA prevents a party from imposing a narrower confidentiality circle in UPC proceedings.: The Court determined that if confidential…

  • LD Lisbon, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_858/2025

    The assessment of whether an action becomes devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) is based on the interest o the party that filed the action. : The court assesses whether an action is devoid of purpose based on the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (R. 360 RoP). The defendant’s interest is not autonomously considered in this…

  • LD Paris, April 10, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_301/2025

    The RoP lack specific pleading rules for a FRAND defence.: Unlike in case of a counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 et seq. RoP) or an application to amend the patent (R. 30 et seq. RoP), where the number and content of the pleadings are precisely set out, the Rules of Procedure do not contain respective…

  • LD Brussels, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025; UPC_CFI_629/2025

    Evidence production applications (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP) require four cumulative conditions: reasonably available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.: The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. This condition is assessed on a prima facie basis and is twofold, considering(a) whether the requesting party presented…

  • LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025

    Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).: The Court reasoned that the reversal of the main decision removes the legal basis for the initial cost order, making previously paid amounts recoverable in the subsequent cost proceedings.…

  • Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026

    The Court of Appeal can grant suspensive effect to an order pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP as Art. 74 UPCA prevails over R. 223.5 RoP.: The Court confirmed its established case law that in case of a conflict between the UPCA and Rules of Procedure , the UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP), allowing it to…

  • LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025

    The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over non-EU/UPC defendants when alleged infringing acts occur exclusively in a third country, as there is no connection to the UPC territory.: Based on Art. 4, 7(2), and 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it was not “appropriate” under Art. 71b(2) to extend jurisdiction, as the…

  • LD Paris, April 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1594/2025

    Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).: The lack of novelty need not stem solely from what is explicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed in a prior art document. It may also arise from what is necessarily implied,…

  • CD Milan, April 10, 2026, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_480/2025

    If any legitimate mapping of prior art onto claim features destroys novelty, the patent must be revoked (Art. 54 EPC).: When assessing novelty, the Court will examine the disclosure of the prior art document overall and will compare this disclosure to the scope of the patent-in-suit. If one way of “mapping” leads to the assessment…

  • LD Milan, September 5, 2025, Confirmation of settlement, UPC_CFI_202/2025

    No Reimbursement of Court Fees Following Settlement in Provisional Measures Proceedings: The LD Milan aligns with the LD Mannheim (see UPC CFI no. 500/2025, order of 28 August 2025, LD Mannheim) in holding that reimbursement of court fees is not granted following a settlement in proceedings for provisional measures, irrespective of the stage the proceedings…

  • LD Düsseldorf, September 9, 2025, confidentiality order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024

    No disclosure of confidential information in parallel national proceedings: In response to a request for confidentiality, the respondents asked the Local Division Düsseldorf to permit the disclosure of confidential information in parallel proceedings between the same parties at the Regional Court of Munich I (case no. 7 O 3152/24). The information was related to standing…

  • Court of Appeal, May 12, 2025, order on appeal against order for security of costs, especially when the action has become devoid of purpose, UPC_CoA_328/2024

    Admissibility of Appeals: An appeal against an order for security of costs, brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures remains admissible, even if the request has become devoid of purpose (here because the appellant has later made it clear that it no longer requests provisional measures). The appellant retains a legal…

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 13, 2025, decision on second medical use claims, UPC_CFI_505/2024 (sic!) [UPC_CFI_505/2023]

    Requirements for the finding of infringement of second medical use claims: For a finding of infringement of second medical use claims, the claimant must show and prove (i) as an objective element, that there is either a prescription for use according to the patent, or at least additional circumstances showing that such use may be…