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 Brussels, April 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_871/2026
Unsolicited submissions in a language change application are generally inadmissible to ensure a rapid decision (headnote 1): A rapid decision on a language-change request benefits both parties and case management. Submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP and filed without prior authorisation are inadmissible and will be disregarded. A language-change application under Art. 49(5) UPCA…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, April 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_305/2026
Provisional measures dismissed where the applicant fails to establish infringement on the balance of probabilities: The Court applied the “more likely than not” test for provisional measures. Since it found that on the balance of probabilities likely the patent is not infringed, the Application was dismissed on this ground alone, without needing to address the…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, April 23, 2026, Decision, Infringement action and CCfR, UPC_CFl_559/2024 and UPC_CFl_106/2025 – Quantificare v. Canfield
Pan-UPC-territorial orders under Art. 34 UPCA can be based on infringing acts in a “carved-out” Contracting Member State (Headnote; mn. 238 et seqq.): The claimant had excluded Germany from the infringement action before the UPC Düsseldorf LD for procedural reasons (parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court for the German national portion of the same…
8 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1291/2026, Anti-Anti Suit Injunction against “Interim Licence” application before Chinese Court
The UPC has jurisdiction to issue an AASI to secure pending patent infringement proceedings before the UPC (Art. 31, 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a) UPCA) (mn. 16 et seq.): Imminent infringement of patents within the meaning of Article 32(1)(a) UPCA is not only its unlawful use. Also the application for a foreign injunction with the aim to prevent…
8 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, April 21, 2026, Infringement action, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Long-arm jurisdiction via Art. 8 (1) Brussel Ia Recast Regulation (BR): The “risk of irreconcilable judgements” requires a four-part assessment: same factual and legal situation, predictability and no abuse: The question was whether UPC Milan LD had jurisdiction for co-defendants based in Spain (i.e., non-UPC territory) for infringing actions in Spain. The result was affirmative…
5 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, April 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_461/2025
Legal interest in revocation proceedings must be examined by the Court of its own motion, even where the defendant does not challenge admissibility (headnote 1; para. 11): The Court held that legal interest is a question of law forming part of admissibility. This examination was particularly necessary here because the patent had already expired by…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 17, 2026, Order concerning a request for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_901/2025
Non-technical features (on their own a “non-invention” acc. to Art. 52(2) EPC) must not be excluded from the inventive step assessment if they contribute to the technical character of the invention through interaction with other claim features (headnote 1; para. 112): The Court held that the interrelationship and functioning of all claim features must be…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_54/2026
The appeal period only starts once the Court of First Instance issues a reasoned decision (Art. 77(1) UPCA, R. 224.1(a) RoP).: Referring to R. 224.1 (a) RoP and Art. 77 (1) UPCA, the CoA held that the grounds of the decision are indispensable for the appellant in order to formulate the remedy soughtpusuant to R.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 16, 2026, Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_138/2025, UPC_CFI_522/2025
Party-affiliated affidavits are valuable technical information but lack the probative value of independent expert opinions (R. 181(2) RoP).: Both parties submitted affidavits from current or former employees. The Court treated these as witness statements rather than expert opinions, but nonetheless considered them valuable technical information from persons with industry experience in the relevant technical area.…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 16, 2026, Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_819/2024 and UPC_CFI_414/2025
Claim construction: The patent is its own lexicon, “purposive non-use” excludes intent not contamination, and claim features can be technically interdependent.: The term “alkali-free” was interpreted not as a complete absence but as a concentration below a specific threshold defined in the patent itself. The prohibition on “using neither arsenic nor antimony” was held to…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_779/2024
For the objective elements of indirect infringement, it is not necessary that both components of the patent claim do exist (Art. 26 UPCA).: Where a patent claim protects a two-component product, the objective elements of indirect infringement are satisfied if the accused component is designed to cooperate with a second component configured in accordance with…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1612/2025
Classification as confidential if parties agree on confidential nature of the information. : The Court acknowledges the confidential nature of specific information after the claimant did not object to the defendant’s corresponding assertion. A pre-existing broader NDA prevents a party from imposing a narrower confidentiality circle in UPC proceedings.: The Court determined that if confidential…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_858/2025
The assessment of whether an action becomes devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) is based on the interest o the party that filed the action. : The court assesses whether an action is devoid of purpose based on the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (R. 360 RoP). The defendant’s interest is not autonomously considered in this…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 10, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_301/2025
The RoP lack specific pleading rules for a FRAND defence.: Unlike in case of a counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 et seq. RoP) or an application to amend the patent (R. 30 et seq. RoP), where the number and content of the pleadings are precisely set out, the Rules of Procedure do not contain respective…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025; UPC_CFI_629/2025
Evidence production applications (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP) require four cumulative conditions: reasonably available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.: The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. This condition is assessed on a prima facie basis and is twofold, considering(a) whether the requesting party presented…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025
Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).: The Court reasoned that the reversal of the main decision removes the legal basis for the initial cost order, making previously paid amounts recoverable in the subsequent cost proceedings.…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026
The Court of Appeal can grant suspensive effect to an order pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP as Art. 74 UPCA prevails over R. 223.5 RoP.: The Court confirmed its established case law that in case of a conflict between the UPCA and Rules of Procedure , the UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP), allowing it to…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.