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 Paris, January 16, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_702/2024, UPC_CFI_369/2025
Action on Infringement of Swiss part of European patent (non-UPC, Lugano Convention state): In view of the CJEU decision BSH vs Electrolux, the UPC does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Swiss part of the EP (non-UPC state, Lugano Convention). But it can rule on infringement unless there is a reasonable…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_5/2025, UPC_CoA_237/2025, UPC_CoA_328/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 60% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_257/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 20% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, January 12, 2026, Decision by default, UPC_CFI_350/2025
A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit: The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant’s right to an expeditious procedure. The defendant was served in the USA via…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_628/2024; UPC_CFI_125/2025
Infringement of a medical device requires a potential use to be lege artis. A use that damages the device cannot establish infringement.: The claimant argued for an infringing use that required piercing the device’s mesh. The Court held this was not a proper, professional use but an emergency measure, and thus irrelevant for the infringement…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026
Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024
For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025
Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025
No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025
No Default Decision Despite Non-Response: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, decision, december 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_437/2024, UPC_CFI_681/2024
Squeeze of claim interpretation and added matter: Claim interpretation Principles The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law (Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_405/2024, 19 June 2025 – Alexion/Amgen). Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but must construe the claim independently (Court of Appeal,…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 30 December 2025, Decision re. application to set aside a decision of the EPO, UPC_CFI_1771/2025
The UPC applies EU law when reviewing EPO decisions, ensuring EU legal guarantees are respected in the administrative procedure (Art. 1(2), Art. 20 UPCA): The EPO rejected the application for unitary effect because the patent had not been granted for all participating Member States at the time of grant and of the request for unitary…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 7 January 2026, Decision in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_433/2024
An application to substantively amend a patent is only admissible if a full, consolidated set of claims is filed in time with the deadline of the application (R. 30 RoP): The Court cannot redraft claims for a party due to the principle of judicial neutrality. Amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstruction, ensuring clarity…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_2/2026
A discretionary review requires hearing the other party and will be dismissed if it disrupts first-instance proceedings without showing the impugned order was “manifestly erroneous” (R. 220.3 RoP): The court will weigh the appellant’s delays against the respondent’s right to respond. The request for discretionary review may be dismissed to maintain procedural efficiency. Courts have…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 19, 2025, Order concerning the need to adjudicate pursuant to R. 360 RoP, UPC-CoA-906/2025
An appeal can be disposed of under R. 360 RoP if it becomes devoid of purpose, meaning the appellant no longer has a legal interest in its continuation: An appeal against a procedural order excluding evidence becomes moot if the main action is subsequently decided in the appellant’s favor, as no further advantage can be…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 24, 2025, Order concerning an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision, UPC-COA-0000911/2025
Appellate review of cost decisions is limited to a marginal review (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 221 RoP): The Court of Appeal only intervenes if awarded costs are beyond “reasonable and proportionate” or deviate from principles inherent in Art. 69 (1) UPCA and R. 150 et seqq. The Court of Appeal recognizes that the first-instance judge-rapporteur…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 29, 2025, decision on revocation action, UPC_CoA_71/2025
Accuracy of translation to be checked at an early stage: The Appellant argued that a translation of a Korean prior art document filed by the Respondent in first instance was incorrect and at best inaccurate and filed own translations on appeal. The CoA holds that these translations are late filed and shall be disregarded. Given…
9 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.