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, June 22, 2026, Decision, infringement action UPC_CFI_811/2024
Injunctions are not subject to the five-year limitation period under Art. 72 UPCA — no time bar applies to injunctive relief.: Art. 72 UPCA caps only claims for financial compensation. The deadline runs five years from the moment the claimant learns of the last infringing act. Injunctions, by contrast, look to the future, so this…
5 min Reading time→ -
Central Division (Section Munich), 22 June 2026, order, UPC_CFI_830/2024
EPO Board of Appeal Revocation Renders UPC Revocation Action Devoid of Purpose: EPO Board of Appeal revoking a patent in full renders a parallel UPC revocation action devoid of purpose, triggering disposal under R. 360 RoP without a merits decision Stayed UPC proceedings must be resumed under R. 296.2 RoP once the triggering event —…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, June 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_293/2025 & UPC_CFI_868/2025
The date of the withdrawal declaration alone determines which version of Rule 370.9 RoP applies — and therefore the entitlement to a fee refund. When the action originally commenced does not matter.: Rule 370.9 RoP provides the legal basis for reimbursement. Its reimbursement trigger attaches to the withdrawal of the action. The rule entered into…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 18, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_907/2026
New facts and evidence on appeal face a strict admissibility threshold under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP.: The Court considers three factors:(a) whether the party can justify that the submissions could not reasonably have been made at first instance,(b) the relevance of the new submissions, and(c) the position of the other party.Evidence relating…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 16, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CFI_86/2025
An intangible data stream, like a video bitstream, is a “product” under Art. 25(a) and 25(c) UPCA, allowing direct enforcement of encoding patents against streaming services.: There is no relevant difference between data on a physical carrier and data transmitted over a network; the carrier has no technical significance for the data’s use. The bitstream…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, June 17, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1129_2026 and UPC_CFI_1130_2026
For late-stage interim relief requests (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP), urgency has a specific meaning: the applicant must prove a new, escalating risk justifying immediate action.: Applications for provisional measures are admissible at any stage of main proceedings, even towards the end, as there is no legal limitation under R. 206.1 RoP. However, when…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, June 10, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026 — Security for Costs Against Asset-Pledged Patent Litigation Entity
Florida Statutes’ conditions for recognizing foreign judgments reflect international standards and do not justify ordering security for costs under R. 158 RoP: The fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not establish an enforcement risk. Section 55 of the Florida Statutes conditions recognition on ordre publique, reciprocity, and fair trial principles –…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_85/2026
A value-in-dispute determination is a procedural decision governed by R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP, even when included in the operative part of a final decision: The appellate regime of an order depends on its substantive nature, not on whether it appears alongside other orders in a final decision. A value-in-dispute determination could have been…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 11, 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_1321/2025
Deadline extensions RoP are assessed strictly: party consent does not bind the Court where the extension would jeopardise hearing preparation: The Claimant requested a two-week extension of the R. 29(a) RoP deadline. Despite the Defendants’ consent (subject to reciprocity), the Court rejected the request, finding it would jeopardise the proper preparation of the oral hearing.…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_61/2026
Market data from providers requiring confidentiality qualifies as confidential information under R. 262.2, R. 262A.1 RoP and Art. 58 UPCA, extending beyond trade secrets per Art. 39(2) TRIPS: The Court confirmed that R. 262 and R. 262A RoP protect not only trade secrets within the meaning of Art. 39(2) TRIPS Agreement but also “other confidential…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 10, 2026, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Headnote: The claimant’s legitimate interest in the publication of a decision (Art. 80 UPCA) may, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, follow from the fact that the defendant has marketed the attacked embodiment by explicitly referencing to the key technology protected by the patent: Publication of the decision under Art. 80 UPCA (in…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, June 8, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026
Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).: The Court held that R. 13.1(i) RoP requires the claimant to provide the relevant facts enabling the Court to assess jurisdiction. It is the Court’s duty to identify and apply the correct law (iura novit curia).…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, June 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1470/2026
Effective service date for an unrepresented defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court is calculated under R. 271.6.b RoP, subject to the “unless” conditions of that rule.: Where multiple defendants are served at slightly different times, the Court may set under R. 9.3 RoP uniform dates for the lodging of a Preliminary…
3 min Reading time→ -
Paris Local Division, June 5, 2026, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_684/2025
New arguments submitted late in the proceedings may be disregarded to uphold the front-loaded procedure (R. 9.2 RoP): The court has the discretion to declare inadmissible new non-infringement arguments and evidence that a defendant introduces for the first time in its Rejoinder. Defendants must present all grounds for non-infringement in their initial Statement of Defence…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, June 8, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2046/2025
.aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }Deemed service on a non-responsive foreign defendant: a registered letter is deemed served ten days after posting, regardless of whether it is collected (R. 271.6(b), R. 276.1 RoP).: Where postal service attempts are returned as “Unclaimed”, the passive or disinterested conduct of a defendant cannot obstruct the continuation of…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 2, 2026, appeal judgment in infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al
On international jurisdiction: The CoA confirms long-arm jurisdiction for European patents in accordance with the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22), i.e. where the Defendant is domiciled in a UPC contracting member state (headnotes 5-8). In this course, the CoA clarifies that the UPC cannot decline jurisdiction in such case, confirming the CJEU’s decision…
13 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, May 26, 2026, Order on applications under R. 360 and 361 RoP, UPC_CFI_850/2026
R. 360 RoP requires that an event occured after the action was filed, rendering the action inadmissible or unfounded – this requirement is not fulfilled if the Defendant relies on an own earlier action requesting the Court to adjudicate FRAND-compliant terms for a cross-license agreement potentially concerning the patent-in-suit.: [6] Pursuant to R. 360 RoP,…
6 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.