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
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
LD Milan, April 7, 2025, Order concerning R. 263 and R. 265 RoP, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Rule 263(3) RoP allows for unconditional limitation of claims, covering both the relief sought and the cause of action.: Rule 263(3) RoP applies if a patentee asserts a plurality of patents and then renounces one of them. Therefore, Rule 265 RoP concerning the case in which theClaimant withdraws the action – all its claims –…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 4, 2025, Decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_501/2023
Jurisdiction over multiple defendants with commercial relationship and same infringement (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).: Multiple defendants can be sued at the domicile, principal place of business, or place of business of one defendant if they have a commercial relationship and the action concerns the same alleged infringement (“anchor-defendant”). Headnote 1 of the decision clarifies: In the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Milan, April 8, 2025, Order concerning R. 19 RoP (adopting CJEU’s reasoning in BSH/Electrolux), UPC_CFI_792/2024
The UPC is considered a court of a Member State.: The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014 (“Brussels Ibis Regulation”). The interpretation provided by the CJEU applies to the UPC as if…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2025, Decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_50/2024
Claim Interpretation of Product-by-Process Claims : Product-by-process claims should be interpreted based on the technical features imparted to the product by the process, not the process itself (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC). The court held that the key feature in this case was the ability to create a structural…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, April 4, 2025, cost decision in PI proceedings, UPC_CFI_697/2024
Cost decision following an order rejecting a preliminary injunction: A decision on costs is possible following an order rejecting an application for a preliminary injunction (PI), although the strict wording of R. 150 et seq. RoP provide for a decision on costs only following a decision on the merits. Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA provides for…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 9, 2025, request to separate proceedings, UPC_CFI_819/2024
No separation of proceedings to avoid potential conflicts with EU competition law: Where several defendants belong to different competing groups of companies, potential conflicts with EU competition law may arise from the submission of sensitive confidential information about a company’s business in the proceedings. If these conflicts arise solely from the fact that the defendants…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 4, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_750/2024
Questions of fact and law relevant to jurisdiction and to the merits of the case are not dealt with in the preliminary objection procedure according to R. 19.1 RoP: Questions of fact and law that are relevant both to jurisdiction of the UPCA and to the merits of the case are, in principle, not to…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 2, 2025, order on Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_819/2024
Multiple Defendants may be sued in one action provided that the infringement has occured in the CMS hosting the Local Division, irrespective of a “commercial relationship”: Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, April 2, 2025, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_429/2024
The mere allegation that enforcement of foreign judgments at Claimant’s seat in China has proven to be enormously difficult is not sufficient reason to order a procedural security pursuant to R. 158 RoP.: The fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a non-EU/non-EEA country, especially in the People’s Republic of China, cannot be…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 1, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_132/2024
UPC sets strict limitations on requests for filing further briefs: The UPC emphasizes procedural efficiency and limits deviations from the standard briefing schedule outlined in Rule 12 RoP. Requests for further briefs must be explicitly justified and supported by specific evidence, outlining the necessity for exceeding the standard two mandatory and two optional briefs. Request…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, April 1, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_499/2024
Re-establishment of rights rejected: Defendant did not show “due care” to meet the deadline to file their Statement of Defence (R. 320 RoP): The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare the Statement of Defence and failed to utilize available resources like the CMS team function or request an extension. Despite the Defendant’s illness, the Court…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 2, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_18/2025
Opt-out withdrawals must clearly identify the patent but don’t require listing every state where it’s valid: The Court found that listing member states in the withdrawal solely in the context of identifying the proprietor was sufficient. Including states where the patent was granted (Art. 97(1) EPC) but not validated didn’t invalidate the withdrawal. Sufficient infringement…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Limited Scope of Rectification Under Rule 353 RoP: Rectification under Rule 353 RoP is limited to obvious errors (clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, obvious slips) evident from the decision’s reasoning – in other words, a discrepancy between the judge’s intended decision and its material representation, provided that this can be deduced from a comparison between…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_425/2024
Patent owners are not restricted in amending patents to counterclaims for revocation: The patentee may also request amendments to the patent that are not directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim. The purpose of Rule 30 RoP is to give the patentee the opportunity to ‘save’ its patent in an amended…
4 min Reading time→ -
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…
3 min Reading time→ -
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…
2 min Reading time→ -
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…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.