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
-
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…
5 min Reading time→ -
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,…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Hamburg, October 21, 2025, order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_553/2025
Competence of LD Hamburg, Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA: imminent infringement: To establish jurisdiction, at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts in the country in question is necessary. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 21, 2025, decision by default, UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024
Decision by default: According to R. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against the defendant may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. In view of this, LD The Hague stated that it…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, October 20, 2025, revocation action and counterclaim for infringement, UPC_CFI_189/2024, UPC_CFI_434/2024
Inventive step analysis: objective problem, realistic starting points (more than one is possible), obviousness (Art. 56 EPC): The assessment of the inventive requires the following three steps: 1.) Identification of the objective problem underlying the claimed invention, which must be carried out in light of the patent’s specification. The problem should be identified in an…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 22, 2025, provisional measures, UPC_CFI_587/2025
The need for a certain amount of time to assess infringement does not generally constitute an unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP): In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 17, 2025, Order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_515/2025
Regular order in the PI proceedings (no decision by default) if the defendant does not lodge an objection within the deadline set by the Court: The Court may issue a regular order for provisional measures based on the application for provisional measures, rather than a decision by default, when a defendant chooses not to lodge…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 16, 2025, order re. service of PI request under the Hague Convention
If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service informs the Court several months after the request that service cannot be effected because the defendant does not exist at the provided address, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025, appeal against an order re. penalty payments, UPC_CoA_699/2025
System of penalties under the Rules of Procedure, specifics of a penalty order (R. 354.3, R.354.4 RoP): Pursuant to R. 354.3 RoP an order or decision may include an order for the forfeiture of a penalty sum in case of (future) non-compliance with an order (hereinafter: a penalty order). Although this must be considered the…
12 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 3, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, UPC_CoA_683/2024
“Offering” according to Art. 25. a) UPCA: The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25 a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in the economic sense and is not to be based on the legal understanding in the sense of a binding contractual offer. The offer therefore need not…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 6, 2025, Decision regarding rejection of Preliminary Objections in Infringement Actions, UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025
A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 29, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_496/2025
An infringement action can be withdrawn with the defendant’s consent under Rule 265.1 RoP, leading the Court to declare the proceedings closed.: Before the written procedure closed, the claimant applied to withdraw the action. The defendants consented, and the Court, following the parties’ joint will, allowed the withdrawal and closed the case. When an action…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_764/2024, 774/2024
Added matter standard – directly and unambiguously derivable: Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information a person skilled in the art, based on objective considerations and referring to the filing date and using its general technical knowledge, would…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Intervention in appeal proceedings is admissible if a direct legal interest in an interim order is shown (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was allowed to intervene in the appeal proceedings because the confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted in the proceedings could affect the Applicant’s business interests by exposing its confidential information to competitors. Legal…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 24, 2025, order on time extension, UPC_CoA: pending
Extension of deadline for filing Statement of grounds of appeal by three working days granted (thereby partially granting the request for a two week extension) without hearing the respondent. : The following reasons were considered in favor of an extension pursuant to R. 9.3 lit. (a) RoP: Two days oral hearing of lead attorney at…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, September 23, 2025, order, UPC_CFI_342/2025
The court established a confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP for documents preserved in the preservation of evidence containing confidential information.: Content 1 Access was granted to the applicant’s representatives, one external technical advisor (bound by professional confidentiality rules), and a designated individual from the applicant company (Rule 262A.6 RoP).: The Court did not follow…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.