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
-
CD Milan, October 9, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_1587/2025
Added-matter objections require identifying the extended subject-matter (Headnote 1, mn. 108 et seq.): The party alleging added matter must identify, by means of a specific comparison, the subject-matter of the original disclosure that is said to have been extended in the laterapplication or divisional patent (Art. 65(2) UPCA, Art. 123(2), 138(1)(c) EPC). A large number…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 13, 2026, order on application for leave to appeal, UPC-CoA-88/2026 and UPC-CoA-89/2026
No leave to appeal re. application for re-establishement of rights: Headnote: An application for leave to appeal pursuant to R. 157 RoP in conjunction with R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it concerns a rejection of the application for re-establishment of rights. According to R. 320.7 RoP, there shall be no right to appeal…
1 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, October 12, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_3452/2026
Alternative service under R. 275.2 RoP may be ordered once formal service attempts fail for reasons attributable to the defendant, provided it is not contrary to the law of the state of service (R. 275.4 RoP): The Court held that insisting on further formal service, once the defendant had actual knowledge of the claim, would…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_146/2026, UPC_CoA_147/2026, UPC_CoA_148/2026
Foreseeable professional commitments and school holidays do not amount to “exceptional circumstances” under R. 9.3(a) RoP: Representatives before the Court are expected to organise their professional activities and make appropriate arrangements within their legal teams so as to ensure compliance with procedural time periods. A heavy workload resulting from other pending cases does not, in…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 12, 2026, review of case management orders, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025
Mandatory fee payment under R. 333.3 is a condition precedent for lodging an application for panel review under R. 333.2 RoP (mn. 22): An application under R. 333 RoP is an autonomous preliminary remedy against case management orders. Under R. 333.3 RoP in conjunction with R. 15.2 RoP, an application is legally deemed not to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 7, 2026, inspection and evidence preservation, UPC_CFI_1332/2026
An order for inspection and/or preservation of evidence requires a sufficient likelihood of infringement : Sufficient, when a patent infringement appears plausible; excessive standards of proof must not be applied. The existence of non-infringing alternatives does not automatically defeat the infringement likelihood unless those alternatives make the applicant’s submission implausible. Additional factors increasing likelihood: Factor…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 21, 2026, Inspection and preservation of evidence, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
Three-step test for determining the scope of the disclosure of the detailed description to be prepared by an expert (confirmation of UPC_CFI_539/2024): Step 1: Does the information in question constitutes a trade secret, personal data, or other confidential information (Art. 58 UPCA)? Step 2: Is the information irrelevant for the question of infringement? If so,…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 8, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_73/2026
The Court of Appeal reviews ex officio whether a statement of appeal is validly signed under R. 224, R. 4.1 RoP, irrespective of when a party raises the objection✓ Even a belated objection by the respondent regarding the signature of the appellant’s statement of appeal must be examined by the Court on its own motion,…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 2, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2660/2026
Alternative service may be authorized under Rule 275.1 RoP upon establishing good reason when standard service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP proves impossible.: Where regular postal delivery under Rule 271.4(a) RoP fails at the registered seat, documents remain uncollected at a postal depot, and the defendant’s known representative declines consensual service, standard service is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, October 6, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_137/2025, UPC_CFI_512/2025
Under Rule 171(2) RoP, a defendant is not required to provide counter-measurements if the claimant’s initial measurements regarding a claim feature are inherently unconvincing and inconclusive✓ Where the claimant’s experimental data fails to isolate the alleged buffering effect from the geometry of multiple casing inlets, the proof remains inconclusive on its face. In such circumstances,…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_99/2026 & UPC_CoA_110/2026
No stay of appeal proceedings under R. 118.2(b) and R. 242.2(a) RoP where the pending nullity action is not between the same parties.: A stay of appeal proceedings pending a decision on invalidity under R. 118.2(b) and R. 242.2(a) RoP requires that the nullity action be pending between the same parties. A nullity action brought…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CoA_126/2026
Even if the defendant has filed the counterclaim for revocation only conditionally, the defendant may still file an appeal: A defendant who has filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation has a legitimate interest in appealing a first-instance decision refusing to rule on an action for revocation, even after it has been determined that there was…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_40/2026
No further pleadings or evidence are permitted once the appellate proceedings have reached an advanced procedural stage: The Court confirmed its broad case-management discretion to prevent additional written submissions at a late stage, consistent with the RoP’s objective of efficient, front-loaded proceedings. An appellant’s request to disregard a witness statement and related submissions as late-filed,…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 15, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025
Digital simulations cannot replace direct examination of the attacked products to prove non-infringement: The defendant relied on simulations rather than examining the real attacked optics, despite having had ample opportunity to do so since service of the statement of claim. The Court held this choice does not justify a further briefing right or additional evidence-taking…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2026, order, UPC_CoA_164/2026
Application for public access to the register: An application for public access to the register must be filed in the language of the proceedings. Division Court of Appeal UPC number UPC-CoA-164/2026 Type of proceedings Application for public access to the register proceedings Parties Hurtel Sp. z o.o. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Patent(s) EP 2 867 997…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Re-establishment of Rights for Appeal Concerning Conditional Revocation Counterclaims
Re-establishment of rights (R. 320.1 RoP) requires showing that appeal deadlines were missed despite all due care due to reasons beyond control. Under Rule 320.1 RoP, a party may obtain re-establishment of rights if it missed a statutory deadline despite exercising all due care required by the circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate that the failure…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 18 September 2026, decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_575/2025 and UPC_CFI_1135/2025
A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP): – The defendants relied on a licence agreement also disputed in parallel Dutch proceedings, but only referred to the submissions in the Dutch proceedings…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.