Author: Saskia Mertsching
-
LD Mannheim, July 23, 2025, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Penalties should be proportionate to the value of the dispute and the level of non-compliance: The Court considered the proportionality of the penalties in relation to the value of the dispute (€15,000,000) and the defendants’ actions. The penalty system aims to encourage compliance while allowing for increasing sanctions for continued violations. Neither R. 354.3 or…
-
LD Mannheim, July 24, 2025 order on value in dispute in the case of a FRAND counterclaim, UPC_CFI_850/2024
The value in dispute for FRAND counterclaims is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action: A FRAND counterclaim expands the subject matter beyond the infringement action, especially if not limited to the patent-in-suit, and its value is determined by the scope of the license sought. Therefore, the introduction of a FRAND…
-
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_359/2023
The UPC does not have jurisdiction to revoke the validated national part of a European Patent in relation to the United Kingdom with erga omnes effect: According to the ECJ’s ruling in BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the Member State of the European Union in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation)…
-
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement of the UK part of a EuropeanPatent: This applies as far as the infringement action relates to acts infringing the UK national part of the patent-in-suit. Whether infringement is given and an injunction and/or other measures can be granted has to be assessed under UK law.…
-
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, July 21, 2025, decision in first instance, UPC_CFI_380/2023
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent: The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in…
-
LD Duesseldorf, March 26, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_260/2025
Ex parte inspection order granted to preserve evidence at a trade fair: The Court granted an ex parte order for inspection and evidence preservation under Article 60 UPC and Rules 194, 196, 197, and 199 RoP. The Applicant successfully argued that the inspection was urgent due to the limited availability of the allegedly infringing products…
-
LD Paris, March 21, 2025, procedural order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_702/2024
The UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringement of European patents in non-contracting states: Infringement actions can only be brought with respect to countries where the patent is in force, which includes not only countries where a Unitary Patent is in force but also validations of European patents in non-signatory countries. (Art. 24(4) Regulation…
-
CD Milan, March 27, 2025, procedural order on application to intervene, UPC_CFI_698/2024
Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a directimpact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313. : The intervener must demonstrate a direct and present legal interest in the specific outcome sought by the supported party, a mere “guiding effect” on…
-
LD Düsseldorf, March 21, 2025, UPC_CFI_76/2024, order on withdrawal of complaint, UPC_CFI_76/2024
Cost reimbursement in case of withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation : If the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are withdrawn by the parties, 60% of the court fees can be reimbursed Division Local Division Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_76/2024 Type of proceedings Infringement action, counterclaim for revocation Parties Claimant: Hand Held…
-
LD Mannheim, March 27, 2025, request for information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Request to determine that information is not relevant to the decision is inadmissible: The Court found that an application to declare requested information is not relevant to the decision is inadmissible. The decisiveness of the requested information can only be determined after oral proceedings, assessment of the patent’s validity and the sufficiency of the arguments…
-
LD Brussels, March 21, 2025, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_582/2024
Rule 19.1(b) RoP does not apply to objections to provisional measures due to their expedited nature : The preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19.(b) RoP relates to proceedings on the merits. This is based on procedural economy and the (extended) timeframe within which theparties in infringement actions, revocation actions and actions for declaration of non-infringement…
-
CoA Luxembourg, March 24, 2025, procedural order UPC_CoA_835/2024
Submissions after the conclusion of written proceedings are not admissible: Additional grounds of appeal that are not raised within the time limit for the statement of grounds of appeal provided for in R. 224.2 RoP are inadmissible, R. 233.3 RoP A further exchange of written pleadings may be permitted at the reasoned request of a…
-
Court of Appeal, March 26, 2025, allocation of costs, UPC_CoA_290/2024
Prevailing claimant to exceptionally bear costs: An exception to the general rule of Art. 69 (1) UPCA, which requires the unsuccessful party to bear the reasonable legal costs and expenses of the successful party, applies if a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder prompting it and the holder surrenders the patent immediately…
-
LD Mannheim, March 26, 2025, file inspection, UPC_CFI_210/2023
File inspection granted to a limited extent: The applicant’s request for file inspection (applicant: a partnership of lawyers under German law specializing in intellectual property law invoking a general interest in information in order to gain a better understanding and knowledge of proceedings before the UPC) is granted to a limited extent in accordance of…
-
LD Paris, March 24, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_813/2024
Urgency of filing a request for evidence preservation: The applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim that its patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed. A period of two months (knowledge in October 2024; request in…
-
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, December 11, 2024, order on adjournment of oral hearing, UPC_CFI_380/2023, ACT_582093/2023
The Court may stay proceedings relating to a patent which is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO when a rapid decision may be expected from the EPO: The request to stay the proceedings shall be decided on the basis of R. 295(a) RoP in conjunction with Art. 33(10) UPCA. In exercising its…
-
CoA Luxembourg, December 10, 2024, revocation of an order, UPC_CoA_470/2023
The revocation under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP of an order of the Court of FirstInstance granting a provisional injunction will, as a general rule, have retroactive effect: As the decision of the CoA to revoke a first instance order means that the CoA finds this order should not have been made. Therefore…