Author: Amelia Saskia Jülich

  • LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

    Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants…

  • Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order on Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_44/2026

    Granting suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances where the appellant’s interest outweighs the respondent’s enforcement interest (Art. 74(1) UPCA): The Court of Appeal confirmed that suspensive effect is an exception to the general rule. The appellant must show that its interest in maintaining the status quo until the appeal is decided outweighs the respondent’s interest in…

  • CD Munich, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2296/2025

    The list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive and cannot be extended to other defences such as lack of standing to sue or res judicata: The court confirmed, in line with the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Aylo v. DISH/SLING (UPC_CoA_188/2024) and Roku/Sun (UPC_CoA_288/2025), that Rule 19.1 RoP only permits objections on…

  • LD Düsseldorf, March 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1849/2025

    Fairness-based language change requires balancing all relevant circumstances; if interests are equal, the defendant’s position is decisive (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP): The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field, language of exhibits) and party-related circumstances (nationality, domicile, size, internal working language, coordination possibilities).…

  • Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_935/2025

    The priciple of front loaded prodeedings also applies to applications for suspensive effect according to R. 223 RoP: An application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence, and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to present one’s full case as early…

  • LD Hamburg, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1049/2025

    The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025): According to Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025, the revised rules re. the Table of Court…

  • LD The Hague, Infringement Action, February 24, 2026, UPC_CFI_619/2025

    Broad injunctive relief covers future product variants without claim amendment (R. 263 RoP): Following the CoA’s Abbott/Sibio ruling (UPC_CoA_328/2024), a claimant requesting general injunctive relief covering patent claims can capture future product variants without amending its claim, provided the prayer for relief is drafted broadly enough, e.g., including “further versions or variants thereof.” Amendment to…

  • Court of Appeal, February 26, 2026, request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_34/2026

    A penalty order under R. 354.4 RoP is appealable only via the leave-to-appeal mechanism: The appellant argued that the CFI’s reference to R. 354.4 RoP in the impugned order created the impression that leave to appeal had already been granted, analogous to Total v. Texas Instruments (CoA_651/2024). The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that…

  • Court of Appeal, February 27, 2026, request for further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CoA_884/2025

    Requests, facts and evidence from first instance automatically form part of appeal proceedings (R. 222.1 and R. 222.2 RoP): The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response. The judge-rapporteur rejected this application, finding no justification for reopening…

  • Court of Appeal, March 3, 2026, order on a R.265 RoP application and determination of value in dispute, UPC_CoA_887/2025

    A claimant can withdraw an action for provisional measures even during a pending appeal, with the defendant’s consent, closing proceedings at both instances (R. 265.1, R. 265.2 RoP).: The Court permitted the withdrawal requested by the claimant and consented to by the defendant, as no final decision had been made.  Upon withdrawal of an action,…

  • LD The Hague, February 25, 2026, UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025

    A number of 42 auxiliary requests (ARs) in response to e Counterclaim for Revocation may be deemed unreasonable; the court can order the patentee to provide a structured tabular overview for procedural efficiency (Rule 30 RoP).: The court clarified that any further combinations of ARs not included in the claimant’s initial application to amend would…

  • Court of Appeal, March 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_678/2025

    The written procedure on appeal is limited; there is no automatic right to reply to the Statement of Response (Part 4 RoP, R. 237, R. 238 RoP): Under Part 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the appellant may file a Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the respondent a Statement of Response. No further written…

  • LD The Hague, March 3, 2026, infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_43/2025, UPC_CFI_103/2025

    Jurisdiction is affirmed if no preliminary objection is filed (Rule 19.7 RoP).: The defendants, including a US-based defendant, did not file a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP and were therefore deemed to have submitted to the UPC’s jurisdiction. Claim construction (Art. 69 EPC) takes into account function; optional embodiments in the description do not…

  • Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Referral to CJEU, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025

    UPC refers to CJEU for guidance on whether jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant can be based on a UPC-domiciled co-defendant for acts in a non-UPC Member State (Art. 8(1) in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) Reg. 1215/2012).: The CoA questions if an alleged direct infringer and an alleged intermediary are in the “same situation of fact…

  • LD The Hague, September 11, 2025, Order on provisional measures based on equivalence, UPC_CFI_479/2025

    Infringement by equivalent embodiment likely: The challenged embodiments comprised an L-shaped strip that was made of plastic, not of metal. The patent claimed an “L-shaped metal strip”. The Court applied the test for equivalence adpoted in Plant-e v. Arkyne (LD The Hague of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023). It found equivalent infringement more likely than not.…

  • LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_338/2024

    Direct infringement when supplying set of components: If the patent-protected product is specifically designed to easily assemble its components at the place of use without the addition of further items, the mere offering or supplying of all components already constitutes a direct patent infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. Direct infringement when supplying…

  • CoA Luxemburg, April 18, 2025, application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_166/2025

    Suspensive effect of an appeal must only be ordered in exceptional circumstances: The application for suspensive effect is admissible but must be dismissed as unfounded. A order on suspensive effect may be considered, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence…