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 Duesseldorf, November 4, 2026, order regarding inspection and preservation of evidence, UPC_CFI_2738/2026, UPC_CFI_2739/2026
Access of a UPC Representative to the Case Management System (CMS) is a precondition for the respondent to comment on confidentiality issues prior to the disclosure of preserved evidence to the applicant: The Court ruled that it can only give the Respondents an opportunity to comment on confidentiality issues with respect to preserved evidence if…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 5, 2026, order on application for confidentiality, UPC_CoA_133/2026, UPC_CoA_134/2026
A request under Rule 262.2 RoP does not automatically grant provisional protection against disclosure of the information by the other party: Confirming its decision in the matter Strabag v Swarco and Chainzone (CoA, Order dated 1 August 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025), the CoA emphasized that (i) a party and its representatives may only be subject to restrictions…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, November 2, 2026, order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_176/2026 & UPC_CoA_177/2026
No suspensive effect following non-final EPO revocation (Art. 74(1), 33(10) UPCA; R. 118.2(b), 223 RoP) : Appeals do not suspend enforcement under Art. 74(1) UPCA. Suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP requires exceptional circumstances, such as an evident error or futility. Compensable financial losses do not suffice, and the patent’s imminent expiry reinforces the patentee’s…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, November 4, 2026, decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_660/2025 & UPC_CFI_1326/2025
Scope of protection for features defined by physical properties (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 1 Interpretation Protocol): A claim feature described solely by physical properties covers only embodiments capable of performing the function the patent attributes to it. Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit defines the “non-conductive fluid” only by its immiscibility and its absence of significant…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, November 5, 2026, decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_466/2025 & UPC_CFI_869/2025
Strict proof of identity for prior public use (Art. 54 EPC): The party alleging prior public use bears the full burden of proving that all claimed features were publicly accessible without confidentiality prior to the priority date. A complete and verifiable chain of identity between the tested sample and the delivered product is mandatory. Unresolved…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 2, 2026, Decision on application to set aside a decision by default, UPC_CoA_935/2025
Alternative service under R. 275 RoP need not mirror the domestic service methods of the State of destination (R. 274.1(b), R. 275.4 RoP): An alternative method authorised under R. 275 RoP need not be a method prescribed by the internal law of the State of destination for the service of documents in domestic proceedings. Otherwise,…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 5, 2026, decisions on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1534/2026, UPC_CFI_1532/2026
Undue delay arises where an applicant conducts extensive, time-consuming investigations that were not necessary to assess infringement of the patent-in-suit (R. 211.4 RoP): It constitutes an undue delay for the applicant, instead of promptly undertaking a limited investigatory effort that would have been sufficient to assess infringement of the patent-in-suit, to conduct more extensive and…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 5, 2026, decision on cost, UPC_CoA_49/2026
Representation costs must be sufficiently substantiated with itemized breakdowns of services, dates, hours, and rates: For the unsuccessful party to be able to comment on both the necessity and the proportionality of the costs for representation, the applicant for a cost decision should provide a sufficiently substantiated specification of the costs in view of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 3, 2026, order on application for leave to appeal, UPC_CoA_84/2026
The application for leave to appeal itself must specify why the appeal should be heard: The CoA held that an application for leave to appeal must enable the standing judge to assess whether the conditions for leave to appeal are met solely on the basis of the application and the impugned decision, taking into account…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, October 30, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_1646/2025
The fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not justify an order under R. 158 RoP: The Court stated that it is the standing practice of the UPC that the fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not justify an order under R. 158 RoP and referred to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, October 20, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_481/2025, UPC_CFI_1358/2025
Claim construction, identical terms: While identical terms in a patent claim regularly are to be understood in the same way, a different context may lead to the result that an identical term may have different meanings in the patent claim depending on its context. The term “quantity” appeared twice in the asserted claim, and the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, October 23, 2026, Decision on Infringement and conditional CfR, UPC_CFI_706/2025 and UPC_CFI_1816/2025
A patent may act as its own lexicon. Where a claim gives a binding definition of a parameter, that definition prevails over the common understanding in the field.: If a claim defines a parameter step by step and states what the parameter “is”, the claimed values must be met exactly as defined. A measured value…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 8, 2026 (published October 28, 2026), Order, UPC_CFI_0001615/2026
Publication of the preliminary injunction on defendants’ websites ordered in preliminary proceedings (Art. 80 UPCA): In Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_473/2025, para. 399) the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) held that publication of an own declaration by the infringer on its own webpage: “may find its basis in Art. 80 UPCA, such a measure is justified…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 28, 2026, order to lay open books, UPC_CFI_1160/2026
A request to lay open books under R. 141 RoP covers the financial details of what happened, must comply with the RoP framework and must be proportionate.: R. 191 RoP disclosure addresses the substantive question “What happened?”. R. 141 RoP addresses “What are the financial details of what happened?” and serves the calculation of damages.…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2594/2026, UPC_CFI_2595/2026
No Unreasonable Delay in Seeking Provisional Measures (R. 211.4 RoP): Delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP) is calculated from when the applicant obtains, or should have obtained, the facts and evidence needed for a reasonable prospect of success (R. 206.2(d) RoP). An applicant acts diligently by basing its application on an in-territory test…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 22, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_2221/2026
The UPC’s “inherent” jurisdiction to ensure its effectiveness: The jurisdiction extends to the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation proceedings or actions for declaration of non-infringement, the court may decline to dispose of the action (Rule 360 RoP) and determine that a patent lacked inventive step, notwithstanding its withdrawal by the patentee: The list…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 22, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_47/2025, UPC_CFI_68/2025
Claims introduced for the first time during the interim proceedings in the infringement action, based on the scope of the patent in dispute within the framework of the auxiliary requests and the related submission of facts, are not admissible: The claimant sought, for the first time during the interim procedure, to extend its infringement allegations…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.