Author: Saskia Mertsching
-
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action and counterclaim for revocation : If the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are withdrawn by the parties, 60% of the court fees can be reimbursed Division Local Division Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_76/2024 Type of proceedings Infringement action,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…
-
LD Munich, December 09, 2024, order re. service, UPC_CFI_508/2023 ACT_597609/2023
Failure of service under R. 274.1 RoP.: Where an application is made under Art. 62 UPCA, it is necessary to serve the application to the defendant to give him the possibility to lodge an objection to the application for provisional measures within a time limit to be specified. Failure of service is given if neither…
-
LD Hamburg, December 12, 2024, order on determination of service, UPC_CFI_664/2024
Effective service to a recipient in Switzerland is governed by R. 274 RoP, which does not provide for a fiction of service: Switzerland is not a Member State within the meaning of the RoP, so that R. 271 RoP and the fiction of service (10 days) provided for in paragraph 6 do not apply. Rather,…
-
CoA, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_217/2024 et. al.
Standard and its application to the case at hand: The Court, when exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, must determine, in light of the facts and arguments brought forward by the parties, whether the financial position of the Claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order…
-
CoA, August 21, 2024, Order on a request for a discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP, UPC_CoA_469/2024
The exclusion of a specific natural person from the confidentiality club in the context of a R. 262.A order requires concrete reasons: The abstract risk that an in-house counsel could breach the confidentiality obligation due to conflicts of interest if the in-house counsel is included in the group of persons entitled to access confidential information…
-
CoA, August 21, 2024, order on an application pursuant to R. 9.1 RoP, UPC_CoA_469/2024
R.9.1 RoP cannot be interpreted as giving the parties the right to file motions on their own initiative.: According to R. 9.1 RoP, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, of its own motion or on a reasoned request by a party, make a procedural order such as to order a party to…