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, September 18, 2024, order concerning a preliminary objection and a request for an order pursuant to R. 361 RoP, UPC_CoA_265/2024 et. al.
Key Takeaways Referral of certain objections raised with a preliminary objection to the main proceedings can be reasonable: R. 20.2 RoP allows that objections are referred to the main proceedings. An objection to the Court’s jurisdiction for damages suffered in the UK and Northern Ireland can be dealt with in the main proceedings for case…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_210/2023
Late request to hear expert of one party as witness in oral hearing: Court dismissed Claimant’s request – raised after the interim conference – to hear an expert appointed by Claimant as witness in the oral hearing on several grounds: (1) Firstly, as a general rule, further pleadings and requests cannot be filed after the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CD Paris, September 17, 2023, order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_189/2024
Extension of time period pursuant to R. 9.3(a) RoP in “exceptional cases” : An extension of the time period to file a counterclaim for infringement (R. 49 RoP) can be justified pursuant to R. 9.3(a) RoP if the Defendant provides sufficient evidence that the submission of documents in the CMS was not possible due to…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 17, 2024, order of the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_217/2024 et. al.
Standard and its application to the case at hand: The Court, when exercising its discretion under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP, must determine, in light of the facts and arguments brought forward by the parties, whether the financial position of the Claimant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 9, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_219/2023 and UPC_CFI_223/2023
If the redactions in Claimant’s reply brief in an infringement action are only subject to the non-technical part, it is not justified to grant the Defendant an extension of two months for filing its rejoinder brief re. this non-technical part starting with the date from having access to the unredcated version of the non-technical part…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_457/2024 and UPC_CoA_458/2024
The possibility that an injunction might be granted by the Court of First Instance (Local Division) in infringement proceedings based on a patent that has been upheld in first instance revocation proceedings, but may subsequently be revoked by the Court of Appeal, is not sufficient to justify expediting the appeal proceedings.: The two Defendants in…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, panel review order re. security for costs, UPC_CFI_373/2023, ORD_48181/2024
Confirmation of legal standard: it is a discretionary decision to order a security for legal costs and other expenses; imposing of a security serves to protect the position and (potential) rights of the Defendant : Factors to be considered (following CoA, UPC_CoA_328/2024; CD Munich, UPC_CFI_252/2023; LD Paris, UPC_495/2023): financial position of the other party that…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_165/2024 and UPC_CFI_166/2024
Existence of infringement is assessed on the basis of UPC law without recourse to national patent law: Art. 25 UPCA (right to prevent the direct use of the invention) constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA (provisional and protective measures) uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws so that these…
11 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 6, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CoA_489/2024, ORD_48358/2024
Applicant failed to demonstrate that a review of the impugned order is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the RoP (point 8 of the Preamble of the RoP) or any other objective of the discretionary review procedure. Its contention that the impugned order is incorrect and does not provide a detailed interpretation…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 3, 2024, order on protection of confidential information, UPC_CFI_219/2023
Submission in rejoinder, insofar as it concerns two third-party license agreements, will not be taken into account in the further proceedings: The submissions in the rejoinder, insofar as they concern two third-party license agreements that are subject of the requested further access restrictions, will not be taken into account in the further proceedings. The Defendants…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, September 2, 2024, request to allocate another technically qualified judge, UPC_CFI_368/2024
No opportunity for parties to make suggestions on (technical) background of one of the judges allocated to the panel: Defendant’s application for a review of the allocation of a technically qualified judge in order to allocate another technically qualified judge with experience in the field of mechanical engineering is dismissed. The technically qualified judge is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, August 30, 2024, order on protection of confidential information, UPC_CFI_99/2024
Information on the profit margin may be subject to confidentiality if it is not available from publicly accessible sources: The Claimant has not questioned the fact that information on the profit margin may constitute confidential information if it is not available from publicly accessible sources. Insofar as the Claimant instead refers to the fact that…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 3, 2024, Order on international jurisdiction and competence, UPC_CoA_188/2024
1) Art. 7(2) in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) of the Brussels I recast Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the UPC has international jurisdiction in respect of an infringement action where the European patent relied on by the claimant has effect in at least one Contracting Member State and the alleged damage may occur…
8 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 5, 2024, Order on connection joinder of proceedings, UPC_CoA_106/2024
A connection joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division of the Court of First Instance beyond the possibilities provided for referral of actions in Art. 33 UPCA.: A joinder pursuant to R. 340 RoP cannot result in the referral of an action to another division…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 5, 2024, Order on application for language change, UPC_CoA_207/2024
The fact that the parties are domiciled in countries where the language of the proceedings chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor in the decision on an application to use the language of the patent as the language of the proceedings.: An important factor is the fact that the claimant…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 2, 2024, order on change in parties, UPC_CFI_221/2024
Late-filed request for adding a party is dismissed based on court’s discretion: The court exercises the discretion granted to it in Rule 305 of the Rules of Procedure to the effect that it does not admit the extension of the complaint by adding a party (a further Defendant). A comparison with the provision in Rule…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.