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, November 12, 2025, UPC_CFI_407/2025, UPC_CFI_408/2025
Pursuant to R. 197.1 RoP, the Court may order measures to preserve evidence without the defendant having been heard. R. 197.3 RoP specifies a review process by the defendant. The LD Brussels finds that this review is a two-step process: (1.) Was the ex parte order rightly issued considering the facts and evidence brought forward…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 31, 2025, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_630/2025
Realization of technical effects and “inferior embodiments”: When an attacked embodiment realizes all structural features of a device claim and the claim does not require the realization of a particular technical effect, the claim is infringed regardless of whether the composition of the structural features in the attacked embodiment achieve a technical effect intended by…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Hamburg, November 5, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_461/2024, UPC_CFI_718/2024
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter, confirming a consistent disclosure standard across the UPC.: The Court confirmed the recent Dusseldorf LD decision (UPC_CFI_115/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) that for purposes of determining the correct priority date, the same standard applies as for added matter, as…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 31, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_755/2025 & UPC_CoA_757/2025
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.: The Court of Appeal denied the appliant’s request to apply R. 21.2 RoP (stay of the proceedings if an appeal is lodged), as the only existing appeal concerned a different matter (confidentiality) and no appeal on the preliminary objection existed. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 5, 2025, decision of the court of appeal, UPC_CoA_762/2024 and UPC_CoA_773/2024
Substantive content of application filed in non-EPO language: If an (international) patent application is filed in a non-EPO language, the filing of the translation of the application into the language of the proceedings will define the substantive content of the application with regards to the requirements of inadmissible amendments under Art. 123 (2) EPC. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 23, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CFI_497/2024
The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 30, 2025, order on application for security for costs, UPC_CoA_8/2025
An application for security for costs may be filed after the summon for oral hearing has been issued: An application for a security for costs may be filed at any time during proceedings (R. 158.1 RoP first sentence) and may equally be filed in first instance and appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_328/2024, Order of 26 August 2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, October 21, 2025, order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_553/2025
Competence of LD Hamburg, Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA: imminent infringement: To establish jurisdiction, at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts in the country in question is necessary. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 21, 2025, decision by default, UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024
Decision by default: According to R. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against the defendant may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. In view of this, LD The Hague stated that it…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, October 20, 2025, revocation action and counterclaim for infringement, UPC_CFI_189/2024, UPC_CFI_434/2024
Inventive step analysis: objective problem, realistic starting points (more than one is possible), obviousness (Art. 56 EPC): The assessment of the inventive requires the following three steps: 1.) Identification of the objective problem underlying the claimed invention, which must be carried out in light of the patent’s specification. The problem should be identified in an…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 22, 2025, provisional measures, UPC_CFI_587/2025
The need for a certain amount of time to assess infringement does not generally constitute an unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP): In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 17, 2025, Order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_515/2025
Regular order in the PI proceedings (no decision by default) if the defendant does not lodge an objection within the deadline set by the Court: The Court may issue a regular order for provisional measures based on the application for provisional measures, rather than a decision by default, when a defendant chooses not to lodge…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025, appeal against an order re. penalty payments, UPC_CoA_699/2025
System of penalties under the Rules of Procedure, specifics of a penalty order (R. 354.3, R.354.4 RoP): Pursuant to R. 354.3 RoP an order or decision may include an order for the forfeiture of a penalty sum in case of (future) non-compliance with an order (hereinafter: a penalty order). Although this must be considered the…
12 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 16, 2025, order re. service of PI request under the Hague Convention
If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service informs the Court several months after the request that service cannot be effected because the defendant does not exist at the provided address, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 3, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, UPC_CoA_683/2024
“Offering” according to Art. 25. a) UPCA: The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25 a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in the economic sense and is not to be based on the legal understanding in the sense of a binding contractual offer. The offer therefore need not…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 6, 2025, Decision regarding rejection of Preliminary Objections in Infringement Actions, UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025
A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 29, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_496/2025
An infringement action can be withdrawn with the defendant’s consent under Rule 265.1 RoP, leading the Court to declare the proceedings closed.: Before the written procedure closed, the claimant applied to withdraw the action. The defendants consented, and the Court, following the parties’ joint will, allowed the withdrawal and closed the case. When an action…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.