Home » UPC decisions

UPC Decisions

  • CoA, May 22, 2026, order concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_61/2026

    Signing and lodging documents pursuant to R. 4.1 RoP: The procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature. It is not sufficient to simply “sign submission” in the CMS after the upload of a submission. This is necessary to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA, May 27, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025

    Further substantiation of already conclusive first-instance submissions is not “new” on appeal: The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested…

    4 min Reading time
    →
  • Contact us personally!

    Contact us personally!

    Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.

    Make an inquiry now

  • CoA, May 26, 2026, order to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026

    Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect: The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024

    Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025

    The four-step equivalence test applied by LD The Hague forms a coherent whole suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalence.: 1.Technical equivalence Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context? 2. Fair protection for the patentee Is extending the protection of…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA, May 26, 2026, security for costs, UPC_CoA_74/2026

    discretionary review requires the impugned order to be manifestly erroneous : The claimant presented a number of reasons why, in its view, the impugned order is incorrect, including new arguments not raised at first instance. It failed, however, to demonstrate or even argue that the alleged errors are manifest. facts and arguments not raised cannot…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA, May 22, 2026, judgement by default, UPC_CoA_21/2026

    For the purposes of R. 355.2 RoP the appellant is regarded as the claimant in the appeal proceedings: A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim 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…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA, May 15, 2026, order on request for use of English at oral hearing, UPC-CoA-50/2026

    The Court of Appeal may authorize oral hearings in a language other than the language of proceedings, without formally changing the language of the case, based on considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency: The appellants’ representative understood French but lacked sufficient oral proficiency for optimal representation. The Court permitted both parties to plead in English…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Hamburg, May 20, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_553/2025

    An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP.: In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the obligation to refrain from an act which has created a continuing disturbance must generally be interpreted as encompassing…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA, May 19, 2026, order on request for a discretionary review, UPC-CoA-67/2026

    Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP: When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD The Hague, May 19, 2026, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI-2228/2025, UPC_CFI-1546/2026

    Assuming jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Regulation requires a sufficient connection between the defendant and the court seised: The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR).…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025

    The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026

    Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024

    Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA): The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026

    Ex parte inspection at trade fairs justified where concrete risk of evidence destruction exists (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197 RoP): The Court ordered ex parte inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair. The Applicant credibly demonstrated that the Defendant could remove the machine or deactivate pre-programmed processes via software update, rendering evidence…

    6 min Reading time
    →

  • LD The Hague, May 11, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_478/2025, UPC_CFI_585/2026

    Under R. 190 RoP and Art. 59(1) UPCA, evidence production orders require four cumulative conditions: plausible evidence, specified evidence within the other party’s control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality : The Court grounded this framework in prior UPC case law, specifically Winnow v Orbisk (LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_327/2024) and Oppo v Panasonic (CoA, UPC_CoA_298,299,300/2024). The conditions derive from R. 190.1…

    6 min Reading time
    →

  • LD The Hague, May 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2028/2025, UPC_CFI_2031/2025

    A review under R.197.3 RoP only benefits the party that files it; co-defendants who do not seek review remain bound by the original order: The Court held that where only one of several defendants files a review application, the review can only affect the order vis-à-vis that defendant, analogous to the principle that an appeal…

    5 min Reading time
    →

    Stay in the loop

    Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

    * = Required field