-
Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on Application for Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_135/2026
Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error”: The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art.…
-
Court of Appeal, August 27, 2026, Order to Produce Evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026
R. 190 RoP does not permit fishing expeditions: The purpose of R. 190 RoP is to enable access to specified evidence that is not readily accessible to the party bearing the burden of proof. An order under R. 190 RoP requires reasonably available evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim and is subject to the…
-
LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC_CFI_1535/2026
For the assessment of urgency it is relevant when the applicant was able to physically obtain and examine the potentially infringing product: Information obtained earlier is only relevant if such information (e.g. drawings) allow applicant to determine with sufficient certainty whether the potentially infringing product is infringing the patent in suit. The applicant of preliminary…
-
LD Düsseldorf, August 21, 2026, Order on the Release of Information in Inspection and Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
Scope of disclosure in the inspection and preservation proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA): A three-step test governs the scope of disclosure of a detailed description to an applicant in inspection and preservation proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA) – Continuing of earlier LD Düsseldorf decision (UPC_CFI_539/2024, November 19, 2025, headnotes 1–3 – Bekaert v. Siltronic). First, it must…
