Home » UPC decisions » Page 10

UPC Decisions

  • LD Brussels, March 21, 2025, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_582/2024

    Rule 19.1(b) RoP does not apply to objections to provisional measures due to their expedited nature : The preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19.(b) RoP relates to proceedings on the merits. This is based on procedural economy and the (extended) timeframe within which theparties in infringement actions, revocation actions and actions for declaration of non-infringement…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA Luxembourg, March 24, 2025, procedural order UPC_CoA_835/2024

    Submissions after the conclusion of written proceedings are not admissible: Additional grounds of appeal that are not raised within the time limit for the statement of grounds of appeal provided for in R. 224.2 RoP are inadmissible, R. 233.3 RoP A further exchange of written pleadings may be permitted at the reasoned request of a…

    2 min Reading time
    →
  • Contact us personally!

    Contact us personally!

    Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.

    Make an inquiry now

  • Court of Appeal, March 26, 2025, allocation of costs, UPC_CoA_290/2024

    Prevailing claimant to exceptionally bear costs: An exception to the general rule of Art. 69 (1) UPCA, which requires the unsuccessful party to bear the reasonable legal costs and expenses of the successful party, applies if a claimant files a revocation action without the patent holder prompting it and the holder surrenders the patent immediately…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, March 26, 2025, file inspection, UPC_CFI_210/2023

    File inspection granted to a limited extent: The applicant’s request for file inspection (applicant: a partnership of lawyers under German law specializing in intellectual property law invoking a general interest in information in order to gain a better understanding and knowledge of proceedings before the UPC) is granted to a limited extent in accordance of…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Paris, March 24, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_813/2024

    Urgency of filing a request for evidence preservation: The applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim that its patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed. A period of two months (knowledge in October 2024; request in…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, March 17, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_815/2024

    A decision for an implied R. 262.2 RoP application is normally only warranted where a third party makes an application under R. 262.3 RoP, but there may be exceptions to allow the case to proceed: With a previous order dated 23 January 2025 (ORD_3866/2025), the Court referred to a previous order from the Central Division…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, March 18, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_339/2024

    Neither the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law nor the alleged violation of the right to a lawful judge constitutes a valid ground for a preliminary objection.: According to Rule 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection is strictly limited to the following formal procedural grounds: (a) the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, (b)…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, March 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_425/2024

    Background of the case: The Applicants request a security for costs under R.158 RoP by arguing that Respondent has its registered office in the People’s Republic of China so that it is alleged that it was not sufficiently certain that a cost decision would be accepted and could be enforced in China. The Respondent countered…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, March 11, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_201/2024

    Timely lodging of statement of claim upon order of provisional measures: payment of court fees relevant (not timing of receipt): The applicant of provisional measures has to “start proceedings on the merits” of the case within 31 calendar days (or 20 working days, whichever is longer) from the date specified in the Court’s order (R.…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, orders, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024

    If infringement proceedings are ready for decision with regard to single national parts, decision should not be withheld if this would delay enforcement: This decision has gained relevance in light of the recent decisions on the long-arm jurisdiction (cf. CJEU, BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22); UPC LD Dusseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023) according to which the…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, March 4, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_468/2024, UPC_CFI_687/2024

    Referral of Counterclaim for Revocation (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP): The Local Division Düsseldorf referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division in Milan. The Parties had unanimously requested the, and requests by all parties will be granted unless strongcounterarguments require a different decision (UPC_CFI 14/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 2 February2024 –…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, decisions, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024

    Infringement of traditional European patents (“bundle patents”): The applicable substantive law depends on whether the act was committed after the entry into force of the UPCA on June 1, 2023 (then UPCA), before (then national laws), or is “ongoing” (then generally UPCA with exceptions).: If the assertedly infringing act was committed after the entry into…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Duesseldorf, March 7, 2025, Decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023

    Late submission of new attacks on validity: The nullity plaintiffs raised two new validity attacks during the oral hearing: a novelty attack based on D7 (Onsemi) and an inventive step attack combining D3 (Nguyen) and D4 (Lürkens). Neither of these new attacks was considered, as they were raised for the first time during the oral…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • CD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_829/2024

    Revocation action initiation (R. 42 RoP): The revocation action was initiated by the defendant against the original claimant (Virdia Inc.). Application for substitution of parties (R. 305 RoP): The original claimant (Virdia inc.) applied to substitute the party with the new patent proprietor International N&H Denmark ApS. This is supported by a 2024 patent assignment…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_483/2024

    Amendment of case (Rule 263 RoP): The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Reasonable Diligence Requirement (Rule 263.2(a) RoP) : The claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • CD Paris, March 03, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_164/2024

    Representation (Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA): A UPC representative with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal entity cannot validly represent that entity before the UPC. The representative must be sufficiently independent to ensure fair representation in patent law matters. Remediable defect (Rule 361 RoP) : Lack of valid representation renders pleadings void but…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, March 04, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_115/2024, UPC_CFI_377/2024

    Denial of additional written submissions (R. 36 RoP): The judge-rapporteur can permit additional submissions only if a justified request is made before the conclusion of the written procedure. The court denied both parties’ requests for additional written submissions due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Timing and justification of requests (R. 36 RoP) : The claimant’s…

    2 min Reading time
    →

    Stay in the loop

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

    * = Required field