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
-
Court of Appeal, December 17, 2025, procedural order re. application of suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025
Exception to the rule of no suspensive effect for appeals against first-instance orders granting access to files: Grounds for ordering suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA may exist where the Court of First Instance has granted an application for access to pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, and it is likely that this…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 10, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_316/2024 and UPC_CFI 547/2024
Recall, removal and destruction generally not applicable in cases of indirect infringement: Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. (Headnote 1) Claimant must provide sufficient facts to justify award of fixed-rate damages: Although…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Milan, December 12, 2025, Order on Service in China, UPC CFI_766/2024
The Hague Service Convention is applicable in the UPC system regardless of any additional national requirements : The Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is entirely applicable in UPC System, regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State. Indeed: (i) the service system in the UPC is uniform; ii) participating Members…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, December 12, 2025, decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_146/2024 et al
The application of a legal standard by the Court of First Instance (CFI), which was established by the Court of Appeal (CoA) subsequent to the oral hearing, does not in itself necessitate a reopening of the oral hearing.: In its assessment of the inventive step, the Munich Local Division applied the test established by the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, December 12, 2025, Order on Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_525/2025
Security for costs for Taiwanese company may be ordered: Security for costs application against a claimant company established in Taiwan can be accepted as the facts provided in the case indicate that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome especially because neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provide certainty…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, December 5, 2025, order re. provisional measures, UPC_CFI_712/2025
An independent process claim and the corresponding description can only be relevant when determining the scope of protection of an independent product claim if the patent specification indicates that it also describes characteristics of the claimed product (headnote 1): Principle of Irrelevance (mn. 145): The court establishes that since the patent protects a product via a…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_414/2024, UPC_CFI_729/2024
Dismissal due to lack of substantiation after contest of facts : Defendants specifically denied that their products’ functionalities in question are incorporated in the source code of the attacked embodiments. Claimant fails to substantiate in more detail, why it is of the opinion, that this is not true or relevant and point to specific facts…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 9, 2025, appeal in proceedings re. damages, UPC_CoA_8/2025
Failure to monitor the patent landscape can establish “reasonable grounds to know”, Art. 68(1) UPCA: Under Art. 68(1) UPCA, the Court shall, at the request of the injured party, order the infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in a patent infringing activity, to pay the injured party damages appropriate to the…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Procedural order re. adjournment of proceedings, UPC_CFI_414/2024
R. 114 RoP is applicable only in exceptional situations where, during the oral hearing, a specific issue or a specific in-depth investigation is identified as necessary and cannot reasonably be completed within the existing hearing slot. : Claimant’s request to reopen the oral hearing and to set a further date for the oral hearing was…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 2, 2025, procedural order re. application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_894/2025
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order or decision would make the appeal devoid of purpose. The fact that a (new) standalone revocation action is pending…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 1, 2025, appeal against an order re. change of the language of proceedings
When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account. Relevant circumstances should primarily be related to the specific case and the position of the parties themselves, in particular the position of the defendant (headnote).: The…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, December 4, 2025, decision on withdrawal of infringement action and recoverable costs, UPC_CFI_415/2025
As the Court previously held (cf. LD Düsseldorf – UPC_CFI_355/2025 and UPC_CFI_186/2025 – Fujifilm/Kodak), the focus of appropriateness “is primarily on the amount of costs incurred” and this from an ex ante perspective. When assessing these costs, elements which could be taken into consideration (having regard to the specifical circumstances of a withdrawal of an…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on competence of the divisions, amendments of the patent, added matter, novelty, inventive step, scope of protection, permanent injunctions, interim award of costs, UPC_CoA_464/2024 etc.
The “same parties” requirement for exclusive local division jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA means the parties must be identical legal entities.: A revocation action by a claimant company is not barred by a pending infringement action against its parent and another subsidiary, as they are not identical parties. An exception for res judicata effect did not apply…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on claim interpretation medical use claim, added matter, sufficiency, inventive step, reasonable expectation of success, UPC_CoA_528/2024, UPC_CoA_529/2024
Inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) exists if scientific uncertainty at the priority date prevented a ‘reasonable expectation of success’, even if there was a ‘hope to succeed’.: The Court found that uncertainty about the relative contribution of a protein’s intracellular versus extracellular pathways in vivo was a critical factor preventing a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, November 21, 2025, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_697-2025
Clarification of “Unreasonable Delay” under Rule 211.4 RoP: The LD Paris clarifies that the relevant moment for assessing delay is the point in time when the applicant knew or should have known about the upcoming infringing act – not when infringement has already occurred, thereby aligning with other UPC case law (cf. UPC CoA ORD_44387/2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 27, 2025, decision regarding the admissibility of an appeal withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and the mootness of the intervenor’s appeal, UPC_CoA_70/2025, UPC_CoA_001/2025
An intervenor cannot contradict the party they support: The Court confirms that an intervenor must not act in contradiction to the supported party’s procedural acts or declarations. Consequently, the intervenor cannot oppose that party’s withdrawal of the appeal. The intervenor has no independent appellate standing: Procedural steps by an intervenor are permissible only insofar as…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, application to withdraw infringement action (R. 265 RoP), UPC_CFI_541/2025
Practical guidance on withdrawing an action against a single defendant in a multi-party case: The claimant had filed an infringement suit against two entities, Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC. However, after facing difficulties serving the claim and being informed by the first defendant that the second was a “non-existent company,” Leap Tools moved to withdraw…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.