UPC Decisions
- Brussels Local Division
- Central Division
- Duesseldorf Local Division
- Hamburg Local Division
- Helsinki Local Division
- Lisbon Local Division
- Local Division
- Luxembourg Court of Appeal
- Mannheim Local Division
- Milan Central Division
- Milan Local Division
- Munich Central Division
- Munich Local Division
- Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
- Paris Central Division
- Paris Local Division
- President of Court of First Instance
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
LD Brussels, August 17, 2026, Order on Admission of Auxiliary Request, UPC_CFI_806/2025, UPC_CFI_185/2026
An amendment to a party’s case cannot be allowed if it could have been foreseen from the outset of the proceedings (R. 263 RoP, R. 30.2 RoP): Granting leave to amend at a late stage would allow the applicant to change its litigation strategy after the fact. A diligent patentee should coordinate its EPO and…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 19, 2026, Decision, UPC-CoA-908/2025, UPC-CoA-909/2025, UPC-CoA-918/2025
New legal arguments raised on appeal are admissible under R. 222.2 RoP if grounded in facts already submitted before the Court of First Instance: R. 222.2 RoP only allows the Court of Appeal to disregard new facts and evidence, not new legal arguments. Since claim construction is a question of law, the appellant could challenge the first…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, August 17, 2026, Decision on Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation and Cost Allocation, UPC_CFI_492/2025, UPC_CFI_1309/2025
It is permissible to make a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement of the patent: The court relied on the Court of Appeal’s Clarification order of 16 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_40/2026, Emboline v. AorticLab), confirming that the procedural approach of making the decision on the revocation counterclaim dependent on an infringement finding is…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 17, 2026, Order on Permissibility and Appeal of Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation, UPC-CoA-40/2026, UPC-CoA-123/2026
Infringement actions and revocation counterclaims are separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA, making a conditional counterclaim an “inter-procedural” condition that determines whether a separate appeal or a cross-appeal must be lodged: Since the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are adjudicated in separate proceedings, a condition linking the counterclaim to the outcome of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, August 19, 2026, central revocation action, UPC_CFI_860/2025
Legal persons are, as a rule, always “concerned” within the meaning of Art. 47.6 UPCA when bringing a revocation action.: The concept of being concerned by a patent, as laid down in Article 47(6) UPCA for revocation actions, is to be interpreted broadly. A distinction must be drawn between private and commercial acts, as Article…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 13, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CoA_884/2025 (appeal from UPC_CFI_231/2024)
Added matter: Omitting a feature disclosed together with claimed features constitutes added matter only where an extricable functional or structural link exists between the omitted and claimed features (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 65(2) UPCA).: One situation where added matter may arise is when claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, August 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
A request for further pleadings must be explicit — hints inside a pleading are not enough: LABS answered the Defendants’ new arguments directly inside its Rejoinder, without filing a formal request at that point. The Court said this does not count. R. 36 RoP needs a clear, stand-alone request. There is no such thing as…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 17 August 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_69/2026, UPC_CoA_71/2026, UPC_CoA_72/2026
A ruling on evidence production keeps its own 15-day appeal clock, even when buried inside the main decision: The Munich Local Division rejected NST’s request for Qualcomm’s source code inside the same document as its ruling on infringement. It never mentioned this rejection in the operative part. The Court of Appeal said this does not…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026
An “attorneys’ eyes only” regime needs the consent of the party losing access rights (R. 262A.6 RoP): A confidentiality order must give at least one natural person per party access, plus their legal representatives. The Court can only exclude all natural persons of a party if that party agrees. A simple objection kills the request.…
7 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, August 19, 2026, Infringement action with conditional counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_301/2025 and UPC_CFI_713/2025
Making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible under Art. 33(3) UPCA and promotes procedural economy.: Where the defendant requests, and the claimant does not object, that the counterclaim be decided only if infringement is found, the court may examine infringement first and defer the validity analysis to a later…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 17, 2026, appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties, UPC_CoA_87/2026
A defendant addressed by an injunction must control third parties and platforms used to market the attacked product, to ensure compliance with the order (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP).: Where a defendant assigns tasks to third parties to fulfil an injunction, or provides content to a third-party marketing platform, it remains responsible for ensuring…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025
Jurisdiction does not depend on whether the UPCA governs the merits: Knaus Tabbert argued the UPC had no power to decide on acts before 1 June 2023. It pointed to an old opt-out that had been withdrawn, and to caravan sales that spanned both sides of that date. The Court disagreed. The Court must be…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, order of August 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1321/2026
Asserting claims in a form narrower than the granted (independent) claims in proceedings for provisional measures is admissible: Relying on a claim combination narrower than any of the granted claims does not, in principle, preclude the ordering of provisional measures (cf. headnote 1). Auxiliary requests in proceedings for provisional measures may be inadmissible if features hail…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, August 10, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_251/2025, UPC_CFI_769/2025
Interim conference reduced the number of auxiliary requests and prior art documents: Following the order issued after the interim conference, Maxell reduced the number of auxiliary requests from 44 to 10. Samsung, which had originally cited 24 documents against the main request and the auxiliary requests, correspondingly reduced its attacks against the main request to…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 11, 2026, Order on Change of Language of Proceedings, UPC_CFI_2082/2026
A claimant’s demonstrated capacity to litigate in English in comparable proceedings may outweigh party size and domicile in a change-of-language decision under Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP (cf. headnote, mn. 21).: Under the CoA case law (Order of 17 April 2024, UPC_CoA_101/2024, para. 22-25 and Order of 18 September 2024, UPC_CoA_354/2024, para. 26-27), changing…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, order on request for file inspection, UPC_CFI_7/2023
Once the Court has issued a final decision or order concluding first-instance proceedings, the public generally has an interest in accessing the pleadings and evidence: Access to the pleadings and evidence fosters a better understanding of the decision in light of the parties’ arguments and the evidence relied upon, and enables judicial scrutiny, which is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 04, 2026, Confirmation by the Court of a settlement, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
A confirmation by the Court of a settlement can be enforced as a decision of the Court.: This follows from R. 365(1)S.1 RoP. Where applicable, the settlement agreement will be entered in the Register in redacted form only. Division LD Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_1536/2026 Type of proceedings Confirmation by the Court of a settlement Parties…
1 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.