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 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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An infringement action can be withdrawn with the defendant’s consent under Rule 265.1 RoP, leading the Court to declare the proceedings closed.: Before the written procedure closed, the claimant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→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_764/2024, 774/2024
Added matter standard – directly and unambiguously derivable: Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information a person skilled in the art, based on objective considerations and referring to the filing date and using its general technical knowledge, would…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Intervention in appeal proceedings is admissible if a direct legal interest in an interim order is shown (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was allowed to intervene in the appeal proceedings because the confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted in the proceedings could affect the Applicant’s business interests by exposing its confidential information to competitors. Legal…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 24, 2025, order on time extension, UPC_CoA: pending
Extension of deadline for filing Statement of grounds of appeal by three working days granted (thereby partially granting the request for a two week extension) without hearing the respondent. : The following reasons were considered in favor of an extension pursuant to R. 9.3 lit. (a) RoP: Two days oral hearing of lead attorney at…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, September 23, 2025, order, UPC_CFI_342/2025
The court established a confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP for documents preserved in the preservation of evidence containing confidential information.: Content 1 Access was granted to the applicant’s representatives, one external technical advisor (bound by professional confidentiality rules), and a designated individual from the applicant company (Rule 262A.6 RoP).: The Court did not follow…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, September 11, 2025, Order on provisional measures based on equivalence, UPC_CFI_479/2025
Infringement by equivalent embodiment likely: The challenged embodiments comprised an L-shaped strip that was made of plastic, not of metal. The patent claimed an “L-shaped metal strip”. The Court applied the test for equivalence adpoted in Plant-e v. Arkyne (LD The Hague of 22 November 2024, UPC_CFI_239/2023). It found equivalent infringement more likely than not.…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_338/2024
Direct infringement when supplying set of components: If the patent-protected product is specifically designed to easily assemble its components at the place of use without the addition of further items, the mere offering or supplying of all components already constitutes a direct patent infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. Direct infringement when supplying…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 16, 2025, order on the production of evidence, UPC_CFI_247/2025
Production of license agreements in FRAND context ordered.: Pursuant to R. 190 RoP and taking into account the stage of the proceedings, the production of license agreements was ordered insofar as the claimant agreed to submit the license agreements specified by it but could not receive the consent of its respective contractual partners to submit…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_481/2025
Key takeaway If the language of proceedings shall be changed and the parties’ interests are weighed, the defendant’s interests shall prevail in the event of equal outcome.: In the event that the weighing of interests of the defendant and the claimant results in a draw, the position of the defendant – having not initiated the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, September 17, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_697/2025
Key takeaway Appropriate length of objection is related to length of application for provisional measures.: The application filed had a length of 30 pages. Even though two intellectual property titles (a patent and its corressponding supplementary protection certificate) are at issue, the 470-page objection filed by the respondent was held to be inappropriate in the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, September 12, 2025, procedural order on further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CFI_733/2024
Strict requirement for R. 36 RoP application for written submissions beyond those foreseen in the Rules: The correct means to introduce written pleadings outside the regime provided for in the Rules of Procedure is an application pursuant to R. 36 RoP. Such an application must be made prior to the date on which the judge-rapporteur…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, September 12, 2025, procedural order on subsequent application to amend patent, UPC_CFI_733/2024
Proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity are criterions for exercising discretion on admission of subsequent application to amend the patent: In exercising its discretion pursuant to R. 30.2 RoP, the court assesses whether an admission of a subsequent application to amend the patent complies with the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity. Substantial and specific…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, September 5, 2025, Confirmation of settlement, UPC_CFI_202/2025
No Reimbursement of Court Fees Following Settlement in Provisional Measures Proceedings: The LD Milan aligns with the LD Mannheim (see UPC CFI no. 500/2025, order of 28 August 2025, LD Mannheim) in holding that reimbursement of court fees is not granted following a settlement in proceedings for provisional measures, irrespective of the stage the proceedings…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.