Author: Saskia Mertsching

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 12, 2026, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_723/2025

    Non-infringement arguments which are for the first time submitted with the Rejoinder can be rejected as late-field: If a defendant has not (timely) contested that the challenged embodiments infringe the patent in suit and if the court follows the claim interpretation of claimant, infringement will be assumed for the purposes of the proceedings for provisional…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024

    If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025

    Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…

  • 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…