Author: Tomasz Klama

  • LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025

    Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s…

  • LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025

    No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade…

  • LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025

    No Default Decision Despite Non-Response: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application…

  • LD Munich, decision, december 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_437/2024, UPC_CFI_681/2024

    Squeeze of claim interpretation and added matter: Claim interpretation Principles The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law (Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_405/2024, 19 June 2025 – Alexion/Amgen). Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but must construe the claim independently (Court of Appeal,…

  • LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025

    The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide…

  • LD The Hague, August 29, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2024

    Claim interpretation: Feature 1.6 of claim 1 in the patent-in-suit (EP 1651838) was central to both infringement and validity. The dispute between the parties concerned, inter alia, the meaning of the wording “turning movements” in feature 1.6. The opposing views: o     City Glass: “Turning movement” means an actual rotation (not just a torque). o     Maars:…

  • LD Düsseldorf, June 16, 2025, decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_140/2024

    Reference to dependent claims by the parties for the first time in the oral proceedings for the interpretation of the independent claims may not be late.: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. The Court must independently construe the claims. The first reference to (further) subclaims at the oral hearing may…