Home » UPC decisions » Page 12

UPC Decisions

  • CoA, August 21, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_764/2024

    No further written submissions after the oral hearing: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, upon a reasoned request by a party submitted before the closure of the written procedure, allow the exchange of further written submissions. After this point, there is no basis for submitting additional written submissions, particularly not without prior approval…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD The Hague, August 18, 2025, Order, UPC CFI 191/2025 & UPC CFI 192/2025

    The scope of a review under R. 333 RoP is marginal and limited to the reasoned grounds submitted by the applicant: When reviewing a Judge-Rapporteur’s order, the full panel will not re-examine the entire decision but will confine its assessment to the specific, substantiated grounds for review raised by the applicant. Issues not challenged in…

    4 min Reading time
    →
  • Contact us personally!

    Contact us personally!

    Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.

    Make an inquiry now

  • CoA, August 21, 2025, order on simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CoA_317/2025

    Request for simultaneous interpretation pursuant to Rule 109.2 RoP must be justified: In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, August 19, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_319/2025

    The court may separate proceedings against multiple defendants on its own initiative to ensure procedural efficiency, especially when service is delayed on some defendants (Rule 303.2 RoP): When service was completed for two defendants but not for two others, the court found it unreasonable to delay the action and ordered a separation to avoid stalling…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025

    The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD The Hague, August 29, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2024

    Claim interpretation: Feature 1.6 of claim 1 in the patent-in-suit (EP 1651838) was central to both infringement and validity. The dispute between the parties concerned, inter alia, the meaning of the wording “turning movements” in feature 1.6. The opposing views: o     City Glass: “Turning movement” means an actual rotation (not just a torque). o     Maars:…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, August 22, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_248/2024

    Indications of purpose in a device claim: 1. Indications of purpose in a device claim regularly define a device in such a way that it must be suitable for use for the function and purpose specified in the patent claim. 2. If a device claim contains an indication of purpose, the only factor relevant for…

    6 min Reading time
    →

  • CoA, August 25, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_758/2015 and UPC_CoA_759/2025

    Application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP): Although R.223.5 RoP provides that there shall be no suspensive effect for an order pursuant to (amongst other) R.220.2 RoP, the Court of Appeal considers that this does not preclude that an application for suspensive effect is lodged – and if justified, granted – for such orders based…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, August 26, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_487/2023

    Public access to the register: A law firm, as a member of the public, shall be granted access to pleadings and evidence upon submission of a reasoned request, pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP. A reasoned request, in this sense, is a request that not only specifies the pleadings and evidence to which access is sought,…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, August 26, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_248-2025

    Security for costs: The court may, pursuant to Art. 64(4) UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, at its own discretion and upon the defendant’s application, order the provision of security for the costs of the proceedings and any other costs of the party, taking into account the facts and arguments presented by the parties. In doing so,…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, August 27, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_521/2024

    Rejection of submission: The court may, at its discretion, disregard not only unsolicited written submissions in addition to the regular written pleadings provided for in the RoP, but also the content of regular written pleadings that goes beyond the admissible content provided for in the RoP. This applies not only to new arguments or facts,…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, final order, UPC_CFI_688/2025

    Representation and service: A lawyer authorised to represent a party in a proceeding on provisional measures is not automatically authorised to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement actionconcerning the same patent, even if there is a link between the two proceedings (cf. e.g. Article 32.2 UPCA and Rule 213 RoP). Hence, the defendant’s…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, August 13, 2025, order concerning an application for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_446/2025, UPC_CoA_520/2025

    Mere marketing authorisation for generics does not constitute imminent infringement (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP): The grant or application for a marketing authorisation alone is insufficient to establish imminent infringement. Additional steps are required for the threshold to be met, and the Court of Appeal clarified that this threshold can be crossed when a…

    5 min Reading time
    →
  • ,

    LD The Hague, August 13, 2025, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_327/2024

    Cost decision on a counterclaim for revocation: If the patent is considered valid only in a form which is not claimed to be infringed, the patentee shall bear the costs of the counterclaim for revocation. However, if the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, August 5, 2025, Default Judgment, UPC_CFI_318/2025

    Default judgment is available if the defendant fails to respond (R. 355 RoP, R. 23 RoP): The court may issue a default judgment if the defendant does not file a statement of defense within the prescribed period, provided service of the complaint was validly effected. Service at trade fair booths is valid for UPC proceedings…

    3 min Reading time
    →
  • ,

    LD Mannheim, August 4, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_162/2024

    Discretionary extension of time periods is interpreted narrowly (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): The court will only grant extensions for procedural deadlines with caution, prioritizing efficient proceedings and avoiding undue delay. Vacation-related absences may justify short extensions, but only if sufficiently substantiated (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): General references to staff absences or international coordination are insufficient; only specific,…

    3 min Reading time
    →
  • ,

    LD Mannheim, August 6, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_336/2025

    Confidentiality of attorney billing records in cost proceedings (Rule 262A RoP, Art. 58 UPCA): Information about the detailed breakdown of lawyers’ hours worked is considered confidential, as such information is protected by attorney-client privilege. Access restrictions to confidential information cannot be limited to legal representatives alone without consent (Rule 262A.6 RoP): Restricting access to confidential…

    3 min Reading time
    →

    Stay in the loop

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

    * = Required field