Author: Saskia Mertsching

  • LD Milan, February 10, 2026, cost decision, UPC_CFI_1738/2025

    An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs: The Court rejected the Applicants’ argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an “arbitrary limitation”. It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety,…

  • LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025

    According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…

  • LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025

    The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…

  • Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-937/2025

    A stay of UPC proceedings pending a parallel EPO opposition is discretionary, even if a rapid decision of the EPO is expected: Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected…

  • LD The Hague, February 18, 2026, application to amend, UPC_CFI_616/2025

    An amendment to include a new product is permissible, but may be unnecessary if the initial claim for injunctive relief is already broadly worded: The Court found the claimant’s request for relief against infringing products “and/or further versions or variants thereof” was already broad enough to cover the new product. Even if one would consider…

  • Court of Appeal, February 18, 2026, suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_19/2026

    Applications for suspensive effect against interim cost awards are admissible in provisional measures cases: The Court clarified that the prohibition on suspensive effect in R. 223.5 RoP does not apply to appeals against interim cost awards (R. 220.1(c) RoP), which are considered orders under Art. 62 UPCA. Suspensive effect is an exception granted only (i)…

  • Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, final decision, UPC_CoA_302/2025

    Pursuant to Art. 75(1) UPCA, where the CoA sets aside a decision of the CFI, it shall, as a rule, give a final decision itself: The CoA, after considering the appeal of the Claimant (and revocation defendant) against the judgment of the CFI in the counterclaim for revocation to be well-founded, must, in order to…

  • CD Milan, October 23, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CFI_497/2024

    The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order…

  • CoA, October 30, 2025, order on application for security for costs, UPC_CoA_8/2025

    An application for security for costs may be filed after the summon for oral hearing has been issued: An application for a security for costs may be filed at any time during proceedings (R. 158.1 RoP first sentence) and may equally be filed in first instance and appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_328/2024, Order of 26 August 2024,…

  • 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…