Author: Nico Karius
-
Court of Appeal, June 18, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_907/2026
New facts and evidence on appeal face a strict admissibility threshold under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP.: The Court considers three factors:(a) whether the party can justify that the submissions could not reasonably have been made at first instance,(b) the relevance of the new submissions, and(c) the position of the other party.Evidence relating…
-
LD Mannheim, June 16, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CFI_86/2025
An intangible data stream, like a video bitstream, is a “product” under Art. 25(a) and 25(c) UPCA, allowing direct enforcement of encoding patents against streaming services.: There is no relevant difference between data on a physical carrier and data transmitted over a network; the carrier has no technical significance for the data’s use. The bitstream…
-
LD Milan, June 17, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1129_2026 and UPC_CFI_1130_2026
For late-stage interim relief requests (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP), urgency has a specific meaning: the applicant must prove a new, escalating risk justifying immediate action.: Applications for provisional measures are admissible at any stage of main proceedings, even towards the end, as there is no legal limitation under R. 206.1 RoP. However, when…
-
LD Düsseldorf, December 5, 2025, order re. provisional measures, UPC_CFI_712/2025
An independent process claim and the corresponding description can only be relevant when determining the scope of protection of an independent product claim if the patent specification indicates that it also describes characteristics of the claimed product (headnote 1): Principle of Irrelevance (mn. 145): The court establishes that since the patent protects a product via a…
-
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Procedural order re. adjournment of proceedings, UPC_CFI_414/2024
R. 114 RoP is applicable only in exceptional situations where, during the oral hearing, a specific issue or a specific in-depth investigation is identified as necessary and cannot reasonably be completed within the existing hearing slot. : Claimant’s request to reopen the oral hearing and to set a further date for the oral hearing was…
-
Court of Appeal, December 2, 2025, procedural order re. application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_894/2025
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending…
-
LD Brussels, December 4, 2025, decision on withdrawal of infringement action and recoverable costs, UPC_CFI_415/2025
As the Court previously held (cf. LD Düsseldorf – UPC_CFI_355/2025 and UPC_CFI_186/2025 – Fujifilm/Kodak), the focus of appropriateness “is primarily on the amount of costs incurred” and this from an ex ante perspective. When assessing these costs, elements which could be taken into consideration (having regard to the specifical circumstances of a withdrawal of an…
-
Court of Appeal, August 13, 2025, order concerning an application for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_446/2025, UPC_CoA_520/2025
Mere marketing authorisation for generics does not constitute imminent infringement (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP): The grant or application for a marketing authorisation alone is insufficient to establish imminent infringement. Additional steps are required for the threshold to be met, and the Court of Appeal clarified that this threshold can be crossed when a…
-
LD The Hague, August 13, 2025, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_327/2024
Cost decision on a counterclaim for revocation: If the patent is considered valid only in a form which is not claimed to be infringed, the patentee shall bear the costs of the counterclaim for revocation. However, if the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation…
-
LD Duesseldorf, April 14, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024
The Local Division in Duesseldorf opted for a joint hearing of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, prioritizing procedural efficiency and a unified interpretation of the patent (Article 33(3) UPCA).: Article 33(3) UPCA gives the Court discretion to decide whether to hear infringement and validity cases separately or together. In this case, the…
-
LD Munich, April 14, 2025, procedural order concerning R. 303 RoP, UPC_CFI_149/2025
Separation of proceedings is at the Court’s discretion (Rule 303(2) RoP).: The Court may separate proceedings involving multiple defendants, but such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering procedural efficiency and fairness to all parties. Joint proceedings are favored for procedural economy, especially when claims involve the same infringing embodiment.: In this case, hearing…
-
CD Milan, April 11, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Late-filed prior art is generally inadmissible.: The UPC emphasizes a front-loaded procedural system, generally disallowing the introduction of new prior art after the exchange of written submissions. This approach safeguards procedural fairness and prevents undue delays (Art. 76 UPCA, Rules 171, 172, and 263 RoP). In this case, the claimant’s attempt to introduce a US…
-
Court of Appeal, April 11, 2025, Amendment of claim and addition of a defendant, UPC_CoA_169/2025
Discretion of the Court of First Instance when applying Rules on amendment of claims and addition of parties (Rule 263 and 305 RoP).: The Court of First Instance has a broad discretion when considering allowance of amendments to claims and the addition of parties under Rule 263 and 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal clarified…