Author: Nadine Westermeyer

  • Düsseldorf Local Division, July 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_209/2026

    If a statement of claim is to be served under The Hague Convention and, according to the competent Chinese authority, the defendant “refuses to accept the documents,” the Court may deem the steps taken so far to be sufficient for good service: The Court attempted to serve the SoC on Defendants domiciled in China pursuant…

  • CoA, July 22, 2026, Order – Admissibility of New Auxiliary Requests on Appeal Not Determined in Advance, UPC-CoA-63/2026 & UPC-CoA-64/2026

    Admissibility of new auxiliary requests is not necessarily determined upfront: The Court did not rule on the admissibility of new auxiliary requests filed with the Statement of grounds of appeal in a separate, preliminary ruling. It found that the assessment of admissibility of those requests required consideration of the procedural history of the case and…

  • Central Division Munich, July 21, 2026, Decision – Device Claim Defined by Structure Lacks Novelty Regardless of Function; No Obvious Typographical Error in Prior Art Where the Term Used Is Technically Plausible; UPC_CFI_714/2025

    A device claim is assessed on structure, not function: A device claim defined exclusively by structural features is not, as a rule, limited to the device performing any particular function. If prior art discloses a device fulfilling all structural features of the claim and that device is suitable for the claimed purpose, the invention is…

  • LD Paris, July 20, 2026, Order – Modification of Security for Costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_530/2025

    Modification of security requires genuinely new and unforeseeable developments: R. 158 RoP allows security for costs to be modified “at any time” but only where new circumstances have arisen that were neither present nor foreseeable when the original order was made. Common litigation developments – such as a counterclaim for revocation or a responsive patent…

  • LD Milan, July 10, 2026, Order – Alignment of Defence Deadlines for Co-Defendants Where Service Abroad Is Pending, UPC CFI 1902/2025

    The claimant filed an infringement action against two co-defendants before the Milan Local Division. One defendant (based in China) had already been served and was facing an imminent deadline to file its statement of defence. The other defendant (based in Hong Kong) had not yet been served – with no certainty as to when service…

  • LD Milan, July 10, 2026, decision by default, UPC_CFI_766/2024

    Deliberate copying combined with continued infringement despite a provisional injunction establishes the infringer’s knowledge, triggering the stricter damages standard of Art. 68 (1) UPCA: Where a defendant knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engages in infringing activity, the Court must order damages appropriate to the harm actually suffered (Art. 68 (1) UPCA), rather than…

  • LD Munich, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2307/2026

    UPC proceedings (here provisional measures proceedings under R. 206 RoP) require a flexible and balanced case management approach, ensuring swift relief while respecting the rights of all parties: The Court must balance the applicant’s right to a fast remedy against the respondent’s right to be heard and the panel’s need for adequate preparation time. A…

  • Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order concerning an appeal in a revocation action, UPC-CoA-861/2025

    A claimant must bear costs if itunnecessarily initiates a revocation action against a defendant who has not given cause and surrenders the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings (Art. 69 (1), (2) UPCA): The CoA held that the principles of equity required that the prevailing claimant had to bear the costs even if…

  • Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-94/2026

    An application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, if no final decision has been issued and the opposing party consents, thereby demonstrating that the opposing party has no interest in a decision being made: The CFI found the patent-in-suit to be infringend and dismissed the Counterclaim for…

  • 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…