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, May 4, 2026, Order on Public Access to Case Files in Evidence Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1167/2026
The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type: Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings…
5 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, May 4, 2026, Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_552/2025
The skilled person under Art. 56 EPC is a notional figure, i.e., affiliations to specific companies are irrelevant and inadmissible as differentiating characteristics: The skilled person represents an average level of knowledge in the relevant technical field, reflecting common general knowledge at the priority date. This fictitious individual cannot be identified with any real person.…
6 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Hamburg, May 5, 2026, Order on Penalty Payments, UPC_CFI_1881/2025
Recurring penalty payments may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders under Rule 354(3) RoP: The amount of penalty payments shall be determined by the court in light of the significance of the order in question (UPC_CoA_845/2024, Belkin v. Philips). A prior threat of penalty payments is mandatory before imposition – also in provisional measures…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, May 5, 2026, Interim Conference, UPC_CFI_165/2025, UPC_CFI_665/2025
It was agreed that number of invalidity attacks should be limited to five or six and the number of auxiliary requests should be limited to about ten: The large number of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests were discussed during the interim conference. It was agreed that the parties shall limit their attacks/auxiliary requestsas follows:Defendants shall…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 4, 2026, review of an order to preserve evidence, request for the expert’s recusal, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
There is a basis for concern regarding an expert’s bias if – from the perspective of a knowledgeable and reasonable observer – certain circumstances give rise to justified doubts as to the expert’s impartiality or independence i.e., there is a likelihood that the expert’s decision will be influenced by factors other than the aforementioned duties.:…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 4, 2026, revocation of an order on inspection and evidence preservation, UPC_CFI_885/2025
An order for the preservation of evidence shall be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect if the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits before the court within a period of 31 calendar days or 20 working days from the date specified in the court order (release of expert description). To remedy the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 30, 2026, dismissal of confidentiality order, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 595/2024
A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP if it is seeking protection for information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. However, the application must be made during the proceedings on the merits if it can be reasonably foreseen that…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 7, 2026, refusal of provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1927/2025, 1928/2025
Re urgency requirement in case of provisional measures: – Applicant’s burden to present/prove: the gaining of knowledge of the infringing embodiment, the potential infringement, and its prompt verification. – Defendant’s burden to present/prove: the evidence from which it can be inferred that the applicant must have had prior knowledge and from which hesitant conduct can…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 30, 2026, order rejecting appeal as inadmissible, UPC_CoA_1/2026
Ex officio assessment of admissibility: The Court of Appeal verifies ex officio compliance with the time limits and rules governing the appeal. When deciding on the admissibility of an appeal, an order rejecting the appeal as inadmissible does not exceed the scope of the claims (sec. 18, sec. 32). Strict application of rules governing the procedures…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, April 29, 2026, decision on infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_214/2023, UPC_CFI_403/2025
Parties select equivalence approach absent CoA case law: When assessing an issue where there is no Court of Appeal case law, such as equivalence, and where both parties have argued based on the same Court of First Instance case law, legal certainty and/or the right of defence guides the local division to adopt a similar…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, April 29, 2026, order disposing of provisional measures application, ACT_551054/2023
Key takeaway PI application devoid of purpose: If a provisional measures application has become devoid of purpose and hence there is no longer need to adjudicate on it, the Court shall dispose of it based on R. 360 RoP and on the request of the parties the Court shall make a cost decision and can…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 28, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_869/2025
Admissibility of submissions : The admissibility of the documents and arguments submitted is a question of fact. Whether the defendant’s submissions in its rejoinder regarding the motion to amend are relevant to the decision in the present case, and whether they were filed late requires a thorough analysis. Such an assessment can only be made…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 27, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_917/2025
Waiver of defence relating to invalidity: Unlike proceedings on the merits, where the Statement of defence shall include a Counterclaim for revocation (R. 25.1 RoP) if there is an assertion that the patent alleged to be infringed is invalid, an invalidity defence raised in proceedings for provisional measures is not a separate action. Similarly, a…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, standing judge, April 28, 2026, order on request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_56/2026
Request for retroactive term extension should be made as soon as possible.: In the case at issue, the Respondent filed its implicit request for retroactive term extension as an alternative request to the request for the re-establishment of rights within the time period for the latter. The Court of Appeal held that it was not…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 23, 2026, order on cost security, UPC_CFI_617/2025
FRAND security of defendant does not relieve claimant from providing cost security : A bank guarantee provided by a defendant, as part of an objection of compulsory licence under antitrust law, as security for any potential licence payment obligations towards the claimant and thus to avert an injunction claim asserted by the claimant (“FRAND security”),…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, April 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_685/2024, UPC_CFI_157/2025
High number of auxiliary requests (here: 51) may be admissible where the patent faces numerous and diverse validity challenges (headnote 1): The Court must weigh all relevant circumstances, including the complexity of the technology, the number of prior art documents, the nature and number of validity attacks (novelty, inventive step, clarity, enablement, added matter), and…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 24, 2026, Order concerning an application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP), UPC_COA_57/2026
Suspensive effect is exceptional and rarely granted for procedural orders: The Court confirmed three categories of exceptional circumstances that may justify a stay: (1) irreversibility of enforcement consequences; (2) manifest error in the impugned order; and (3) evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome of the proceedings. Under Art. 74(3) UPCA,…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.