Author: Sabrina Hütt

  • LD Brussels, May 4, 2026, Order on Public Access to Case Files in Evidence Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1167/2026

    The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type: Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings…

  • CD Milan, May 4, 2026, Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_552/2025

    The skilled person under Art. 56 EPC is a notional figure, i.e., affiliations to specific companies are irrelevant and inadmissible as differentiating characteristics: The skilled person represents an average level of knowledge in the relevant technical field, reflecting common general knowledge at the priority date. This fictitious individual cannot be identified with any real person.…

  • LD Hamburg, May 5, 2026, Order on Penalty Payments, UPC_CFI_1881/2025

    Recurring penalty payments may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders under Rule 354(3) RoP: The amount of penalty payments shall be determined by the court in light of the significance of the order in question (UPC_CoA_845/2024, Belkin v. Philips). A prior threat of penalty payments is mandatory before imposition – also in provisional measures…

  • LD Munich, May 5, 2026, Interim Conference, UPC_CFI_165/2025, UPC_CFI_665/2025

    It was agreed that number of invalidity attacks should be limited to five or six and the number of auxiliary requests should be limited to about ten: The large number of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests were discussed during the interim conference. It was agreed that the parties shall limit their attacks/auxiliary requestsas follows:Defendants shall…

  • Court of Appeal, January 16, 2026, Order regarding application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_000935/2025

    The CoA grants the application for suspensive effect only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect.: An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74.1 UPCA). It must…

  • LD Mannheim, January 19, 2026, Order regarding confidentiality of FRAND negotiations, UPC_CFI_481/2025

    General order was issued stipulating that submissions on details of FRAND negotiations between the parties, even if they are only introduced into the proceedings in future pleadings, are already protected under R. 262A RoP : The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to at least one of the parties, because it relates to…

  • The UPC’s role in global patent litigation

    The UPC’s role in global patent litigation

    A closer look at the strategic use of the UPC – taken both under a claimant’s and a defendant’s perspective By JUVE PATENT and BARDEHLE PAGENBERG JUVE PATENT and BARDEHLE PAGENBERG invite you to an informal in-house IP networking event with a keynote speech by Prof. Dr. Meier-Beck and expert speakers from leading tech companies. Date…

  • CD Paris, October 20, 2025, revocation action and counterclaim for infringement, UPC_CFI_189/2024, UPC_CFI_434/2024

    Inventive step analysis: objective problem, realistic starting points (more than one is possible), obviousness (Art. 56 EPC): The assessment of the inventive requires the following three steps: 1.) Identification of the objective problem underlying the claimed invention, which must be carried out in light of the patent’s specification. The problem should be identified in an…

  • LD The Hague, October 22, 2025, provisional measures, UPC_CFI_587/2025

    The need for a certain amount of time to assess infringement does not generally constitute an unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP): In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the…

  • LD Düsseldorf, June 16, 2025, decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_140/2024

    Reference to dependent claims by the parties for the first time in the oral proceedings for the interpretation of the independent claims may not be late.: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. The Court must independently construe the claims. The first reference to (further) subclaims at the oral hearing may…

  • CoA Luxembourg, June 19, 2025, application for rehearing, UPC_CoA_402/2024, UPC_CoA_405/2024

    The circumstances on which the application for rehearing is based must not already have been know during the first instance or appeal proceedings.: Art. 81(1) UPCA offers the possibility to request a rehearing after a final decision when, it is based on an act which has been held to constitute a criminal offence or in…

  • LD Munich, February 25, 2025, Reimbursement of Court fees, UPC_CFI_208/2023, UPC_CFI_220/2024, UPC_CFI_221/2024

    Reimbursement of Court fees should be proportionate to efforts already made by the Court : The purpose of R. 370.9 (b) and (e) RoP on reimbursement of fees in case of a withdrawal of an action is to ensure that the reimbursement is proportionate to the efforts already made by the Court. A complex patent…

  • CD Paris, November 5, 2024, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_309/2023

    R. 30 (1) (c) RoP does not set out the consequence that all amendments proposed (auxiliary requests) should be dismissed en bloc as not meeting the criterion of being reasonable in number.: Only some of the proposed auxiliary requests may be admitted. The Court can limit a patent by an amendment of the claims and…

  • CD Paris, November 5, 2024, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_315/2023

    The Court does not evaluate reasons for revocation that the Claimant has not raised.: The Claimant defines the scope of evaluation for a revocation action. If a party, in its first submission, raises an argument and the other party takes issue with this argument in reply, the party may further substantiate its initial argument in…

  • LD Munich, August 6, 2024, application for leave to change claim, UPC_CFI_41/2024

    Strict application of R. 263.1 RoP regarding a party’s application for leave to change its claim: Pursuant to R. 263.2 RoP, leave shall not be granted if the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage and (b) the…

  • CoA Luxembourg, August 8, 2024, service of written pleadings/other documents, UPC_CoA_405/2024

    Written pleadings are served by the Registry in the electronic CMS of the Court unless service cannot be effected by means of electronic communication (R. 278.1 and 278.2 RoP): Prior communication between the parties themselves of the written pleadings via another electronic system like the German special electronic lawyer’s mailbox (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach, (beA)) cannot…

  • LD Duesseldorf, August 5, 2024, subsequent request to amend patent, UPC_CFI_363_2023

    Rule 30.2 RoP leaves open the time of a decision on the admission of a subsequent request for amendment of the patent: The time of the decision is at the discretion of the court. The judge-rapporteur may postpone such a decision. A rejecting order is not required. As long as the subsequent request for amendment…