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 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
LD Brussels, April 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_871/2026
Unsolicited submissions in a language change application are generally inadmissible to ensure a rapid decision (headnote 1): A rapid decision on a language-change request benefits both parties and case management. Submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP and filed without prior authorisation are inadmissible and will be disregarded. A language-change application under Art. 49(5) UPCA…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, April 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_305/2026
Provisional measures dismissed where the applicant fails to establish infringement on the balance of probabilities: The Court applied the “more likely than not” test for provisional measures. Since it found that on the balance of probabilities likely the patent is not infringed, the Application was dismissed on this ground alone, without needing to address the…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 23, 2026, Decision, Infringement action and CCfR, UPC_CFl_559/2024 and UPC_CFl_106/2025 – Quantificare v. Canfield
Pan-UPC-territorial orders under Art. 34 UPCA can be based on infringing acts in a “carved-out” Contracting Member State (Headnote; mn. 238 et seqq.): The claimant had excluded Germany from the infringement action before the UPC Düsseldorf LD for procedural reasons (parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court for the German national portion of the same…
8 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1291/2026, Anti-Anti Suit Injunction against “Interim Licence” application before Chinese Court
The UPC has jurisdiction to issue an AASI to secure pending patent infringement proceedings before the UPC (Art. 31, 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a) UPCA) (mn. 16 et seq.): Imminent infringement of patents within the meaning of Article 32(1)(a) UPCA is not only its unlawful use. Also the application for a foreign injunction with the aim to prevent…
8 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, April 21, 2026, Infringement action, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Long-arm jurisdiction via Art. 8 (1) Brussel Ia Recast Regulation (BR): The “risk of irreconcilable judgements” requires a four-part assessment: same factual and legal situation, predictability and no abuse: The question was whether UPC Milan LD had jurisdiction for co-defendants based in Spain (i.e., non-UPC territory) for infringing actions in Spain. The result was affirmative…
5 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, April 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_461/2025
Legal interest in revocation proceedings must be examined by the Court of its own motion, even where the defendant does not challenge admissibility (headnote 1; para. 11): The Court held that legal interest is a question of law forming part of admissibility. This examination was particularly necessary here because the patent had already expired by…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 17, 2026, Order concerning a request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_901/2025
Non-technical features (on their own a “non-invention” acc. to Art. 52(2) EPC) must not be excluded from the inventive step assessment if they contribute to the technical character of the invention through interaction with other claim features (headnote 1; para. 112): The Court held that the interrelationship and functioning of all claim features must be…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_54/2026
The appeal period only starts once the Court of First Instance issues a reasoned decision (Art. 77(1) UPCA, R. 224.1(a) RoP).: Referring to R. 224.1 (a) RoP and Art. 77 (1) UPCA, the CoA held that the grounds of the decision are indispensable for the appellant in order to formulate the remedy soughtpusuant to R.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 16, 2026, Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_138/2025, UPC_CFI_522/2025
Party-affiliated affidavits are valuable technical information but lack the probative value of independent expert opinions (R. 181(2) RoP).: Both parties submitted affidavits from current or former employees. The Court treated these as witness statements rather than expert opinions, but nonetheless considered them valuable technical information from persons with industry experience in the relevant technical area.…
5 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.