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 Paris, July 18, 2026, time extension request, UPC_CFI_1963/2025, UPC_CFI_1247/2026
The burden of diligence to obtain access to a non-confidential version of a brief lies with the party seeking it: Where an unredacted version of a brief (marked highly confidential “HC” in the CMS, only accessible to the court) is filed simultaneously with a redacted version (marked mutual “M” in the CMS, accessible to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 27, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
An applicant’s predominantly personal interest in access to the register may result in strict confidentiality obligations under Rule 262.2 RoP: When deciding on a confidentiality request under Rule 262.2 RoP, the Court may take into account that the applicant has a predominantly personal interest in accessing the register. As a result, the Court may apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Milan, July 28, 2026, request to change the language of the proceedings, UPC_CFI_1146/2026
The request to change the language of proceedings may be lodged prior to the statement of defense : Art. 49 (5) does not require the application for a language change to be included in the statement of defence. R. 323.3 must accordingly be interpreted in such a manner that it does not preclude the lodging…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, July 23, 2026, Decision on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_2192/2026
Public access during ongoing proceedings requires a specific interest: Granting access to a case file is the general rule and restricting access is the exception (Sec. 7). However, where proceedings are still ongoing, public access to the register requires a “more specific” or “direct legitimate” interest of the applicant to override the interest in protecting…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 24, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
Admissibility of public access requests under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a specific application: A member of the public must submit a reasoned request explaining the purpose of the requested access and specify the documents and evidence sought as precisely as possible (Sec. 15). In this regard it is sufficient that applicant wants to better undestand…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 29, 2026, Order on subsequent request to amend the patent and on late submissions, UPC_CFI_530/2025
A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP is only admissible under exceptional and cumulative circumstances: The claimant must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been filed earlier with reasonable diligence, and that it does not unreasonably hinder the defendant(s) in conducting the proceedings. Both conditions must be met cumulatively (see…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 30, 2026, Order on Cost Security, UPC_CFI_2216/2025, UPC_CFI_1829/2026
Minimum share capital and microenterprise structure are per se not sufficient to justify security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP: The Court held that (i) claimant’s minimum share capital of EUR 19,700 and (ii) its microenterprise structure were in themselves insufficient circumstances to assess a company’s financial soundness. A relatively modest…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, July 29, 2026, Decision on confirmation of a settlement, UPC_CFI_757/2024
Agreement on costs confirmed and rendered enforceable pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP: The Court held that R. 365.1 RoP (Confirmation by the Court of a settlement) applies to settlements limited to costs. As long as the settlement resolves an existing or potential dispute, regardless of whether it is submitted pending main proceedings on the merits…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 27, 2026, Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises, UPC_CFI_1746/2026, UPC_CFI_1747/2026, UPC_CFI_1751/2026, UPC_CFI_1752/2026
Art. 60(1) UPCA is a lex specialis displacing general confidentiality rules under Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262, 262A RoP in evidence preservation proceedings (Sec. 30): While Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP grant the Court a discretion to order confidentiality measures to protect confidential information, Art. 60(1) UPCA mandatorily requires the…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, July 29, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_1902/2025
Pragmatic solution for alignment of deadlines and service : The Claimant lodged an infringement action against two Defendants, Ziwu registered in China and Resosport registered in Hong Kong. Service was duly effected on Ziwu but not on Resosport. Ziwu thus requested an alignment of deadlines against acceptance of service by Resosport. Claimant opposed to the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, July 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_894/2026
“Withdrawal” of confidential document possible before adversary’s access: The Court acceded to the request of the Claimant to withdraw a confidential document by ordering that the unredacted version of the document be disregarded. The confidential document will not become accessible to the Defendant but will remain in the CMS. Initially, the Claimant submitted an unredacted…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 21, 2026, interim conference, UPC_CFI_703/2025 and UPC_CFI_1757_2025
Physical inspections and judicial weighing experiments may be ordered under Rules 170.2(f), 170.2(g), and 201 RoP if necessary and proportionate to establish infringement: The claimant’s request to weigh the seized vehicle was justified to prove infringement. The court noted that practical difficulties and costs do not negate the necessity of the experiment. (Sec. 10 et…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, Decision on infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025
FRAND behaviour: consent to amend NDA required: If an NDA between the parties prevents one party from making submissions or producing documents, and the other party, without reasonable justification, refuses to amend the NDA to enable such production, this shall be to the detriment of the latter party (headnote 1, Sec. 352 et seqq.).In such…
7 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf Local Division, July 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_209/2026
If a statement of claim is to be served under The Hague Convention and, according to the competent Chinese authority, the defendant “refuses to accept the documents,” the Court may deem the steps taken so far to be sufficient for good service: The Court attempted to serve the SoC on Defendants domiciled in China pursuant…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 22, 2026, Order – Admissibility of New Auxiliary Requests on Appeal Not Determined in Advance, UPC-CoA-63/2026 & UPC-CoA-64/2026
Admissibility of new auxiliary requests is not necessarily determined upfront: The Court did not rule on the admissibility of new auxiliary requests filed with the Statement of grounds of appeal in a separate, preliminary ruling. It found that the assessment of admissibility of those requests required consideration of the procedural history of the case and…
2 min Reading time→ -
Central Division Munich, July 21, 2026, Decision – Device Claim Defined by Structure Lacks Novelty Regardless of Function; No Obvious Typographical Error in Prior Art Where the Term Used Is Technically Plausible; UPC_CFI_714/2025
A device claim is assessed on structure, not function: A device claim defined exclusively by structural features is not, as a rule, limited to the device performing any particular function. If prior art discloses a device fulfilling all structural features of the claim and that device is suitable for the claimed purpose, the invention is…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 20, 2026, Order – Modification of Security for Costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_530/2025
Modification of security requires genuinely new and unforeseeable developments: R. 158 RoP allows security for costs to be modified “at any time” but only where new circumstances have arisen that were neither present nor foreseeable when the original order was made. Common litigation developments – such as a counterclaim for revocation or a responsive patent…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.