Author: Philipp Bovenkamp
-
LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025
Functional claim construction; disregarding additional features: The patent is related to an optical device having a specific arrangement of a single input fiber for lighting. The accused embodiment comprises multiple input fibres, but only one of them is used for coupling input laser light; the other fibres are used for other functionalities that do not…
-
Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026, Decision concerning public access to the register, UPC_CoA_9/2026, UPC_CoA_10/2026
Reasoned requests regarding access to documents (R. 262.1(b) RoP) shall be made to the relevant division + separate responsibility of Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal: This ensures that the decision will be taken by the judge-rapporteur, who is familiar with the case file. Headnotes: Reasoned requests to the Registry for written pleadings…
-
LD Munich, 24 February 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_609/2025
Representation by attorney at law or patent attorney (Art. 48, 58 UPCA): A party can choose freely between being represented by an attorney at law, a patent attorney or a team of both. There is no obligation to consider the nature of the case. This is also reflected in the headnotes: 1) It follows from…
-
LD Düsseldorf, October 31, 2025, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_630/2025
Realization of technical effects and “inferior embodiments”: When an attacked embodiment realizes all structural features of a device claim and the claim does not require the realization of a particular technical effect, the claim is infringed regardless of whether the composition of the structural features in the attacked embodiment achieve a technical effect intended by…
-
Court of Appeal, November 5, 2025, decision of the court of appeal, UPC_CoA_762/2024 and UPC_CoA_773/2024
Substantive content of application filed in non-EPO language: If an (international) patent application is filed in a non-EPO language, the filing of the translation of the application into the language of the proceedings will define the substantive content of the application with regards to the requirements of inadmissible amendments under Art. 123 (2) EPC. The…
-
LD Düsseldorf, 9 July 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_355/2023, UPC_CFI_186/2025
Representation Costs in Cost Proceedings: Proceedings for cost decisions under R. 150 et seq. RoP are summary proceedings. Awarding compensation for the additional costs of the cost proceedings is not envisaged in the Rules and it would give the parties an incentive to spend more resources in the summary proceedings than necessary, thus resulting in…
-
Local Division Mannheim, July 9, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_292/2025
Language of the proceedings: If the language of the proceedings is not the language in which the patent was granted, Art. 49(5) UPCA allows to change the language of the proceedings. A change, however, requires that the President of the Court of First Instance consults all parties potentially affected thereby and the panel of the…
-
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has no jurisdiction over a European Patent with regard to those national parts of UPCA member states which have already lapsed before 1 June 2023. The same applies to national parts of non-UPCA-member states: Without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA, Art. 3 (c) UPCA vests upon the UPC jurisdiction over any pre-existing European…
-
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_359/2023
Strict Application Principle for Amending Patents in Defense Against Revocation: Art. 76 (1) UPCA contains a strict application principle. Accordingly, a patent proprietor, who wishes to defend its patent in a limited version, has to submit a clear and comprehensive Application to amend the patent. This includes situations where the proprietor wishes to rely on…
-
LD Mannheim, April 2, 2025, order on Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_819/2024
Multiple Defendants may be sued in one action provided that the infringement has occured in the CMS hosting the Local Division, irrespective of a “commercial relationship”: Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by…
-
LD Mannheim, April 1, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_132/2024
UPC sets strict limitations on requests for filing further briefs: The UPC emphasizes procedural efficiency and limits deviations from the standard briefing schedule outlined in Rule 12 RoP. Requests for further briefs must be explicitly justified and supported by specific evidence, outlining the necessity for exceeding the standard two mandatory and two optional briefs. Request…
-
LD The Hague, April 1, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_499/2024
Re-establishment of rights rejected: Defendant did not show “due care” to meet the deadline to file their Statement of Defence (R. 320 RoP): The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare the Statement of Defence and failed to utilize available resources like the CMS team function or request an extension. Despite the Defendant’s illness, the Court…
-
LD Munich, April 2, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_18/2025
Opt-out withdrawals must clearly identify the patent but don’t require listing every state where it’s valid: The Court found that listing member states in the withdrawal solely in the context of identifying the proprietor was sufficient. Including states where the patent was granted (Art. 97(1) EPC) but not validated didn’t invalidate the withdrawal. Sufficient infringement…
-
CD Paris, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Limited Scope of Rectification Under Rule 353 RoP: Rectification under Rule 353 RoP is limited to obvious errors (clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, obvious slips) evident from the decision’s reasoning – in other words, a discrepancy between the judge’s intended decision and its material representation, provided that this can be deduced from a comparison between…
-
LD Munich, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_425/2024
Patent owners are not restricted in amending patents to counterclaims for revocation: The patentee may also request amendments to the patent that are not directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim. The purpose of Rule 30 RoP is to give the patentee the opportunity to ‘save’ its patent in an amended…
-
LD Mannheim, September 9, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023
If the redactions in Claimant’s reply brief in an infringement action are only subject to the non-technical part, it is not justified to grant the Defendant an extension of two months for filing its rejoinder brief re. this non-technical part starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part…
-
CoA, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_457/2024 and UPC_CoA_458/2024
The possibility that an injunction might be granted by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in infringement proceedings based on a patent that has been upheld in first instance revocation proceedings, but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeal proceedings.: The two Defendants in…