Author: Nadine Westermeyer
-
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…
-
LD Mannheim, January 31, 2025, Decision of first instance (Infringement Proceedings and Counterclaim for Revocation), UPC_CFI_340/2023
In view of the lack of patentability, the admissible infringement action is unfounded without the need for a judicial review of the infringement allegation required.: After the court has dealt with the interpretation of the patent-in-suit and established the invalidity of the patent-in-suit, it dismissed the infringement action without further ado. Both the examination of…
-
LD Munich, February 5, 2025, Decision re. Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_740/2024
A Preliminary objection can also be raised with regard to a counterclaim for revocation.: Although R. 19 RoP addresses infringement actions, the principle of equality of arms requires that the defendant of a counterclaim for revocation must be able to assert a lack of competence procedurally in the same way as the defendant of an infringement…
-
LD Paris, February 5, 2025, order concerning further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), UPC_CFI_163/2024
Three sucessive stages of the written procedure in infringement actions: The Rules of Procedure devide the written procedure into several successive stages: Stage 1: Pleadings relating to the infringement claim comprising a set of 4 statements Stage 2: Pleadings relating to the validity of the patent-in-suit in the event of a counterclaim for revocation Stage…