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
-
CoA, 18 September 2026, appeal against a cost decision, UPC_CoA_121/2026
Under Art. 74(2) UPCA, appeals against revocation decisions have automatic suspensive effect, preserving patent status erga omnes, unlike the general rule in Art. 74(1) UPCA: – This automatic effect reflects the specific nature of validity decisions, which apply erga omnes. Unlike Art. 74(1) UPCA, where suspensive effect requires a motivated request showing exceptional circumstances, Art.…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 21, 2026, order regarding an appeal against an order rejecting a preliminary objection, UPC_CoA_90/2026
Filing a declaration of non-infringement before patent grant raises a question of admissibility, not of UPC competence, under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA: – Competence pursuant to Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA depends on the claimant’s actual intent in its statement of claim. Because the claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement against granted patents, the action falls within the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, September 29, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Calculation and Reimbursement of Court Fees for Revocation Counterclaim Appeals
Appeals concerning revocation counterclaims incur first-instance fees plus 10% under R. 228 and R. 370.5(a) RoP, subject to a pre-increase cap. Under Rule 228 and Rule 370.5(a) RoP, the fee for appealing a revocation counterclaim under Rule 220.1(a) RoP equals the first-instance counterclaim fee increased by 10%. This fee mirrors the infringement fee based on…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 3, 2026, Order concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection (R. 192 RoP), UPC_CoA_113/2026
An order to preserve evidence pursuant to Art. 60 UPCA also allows for the seizure of promotional and commercial documents (potentially) proving infringing activities and is not limited to documents concerning the technical details of the product or process in question. : headnote 1: “The scope of application of Art. 60 UPCA is not limited…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 28, 2026, Decision UPC_CoA_678/2025
Admissibility of patent amendments (R. 30.1 RoP): Review is limited to whether the patentee filed an explanation on Art. 84 and 123(2),(3) EPC compliance — not whether that explanation is convincing. Convincingness is a merits question, decided at the validity stage. Claim construction after amendment: The unamended parts of the description remain a valid explanatory aid for interpreting…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, September 3, 2026, procedural order on time limits after stay of proceedings is lifted, UPC_CFI_871/2026
Rule 296.3 RoP is to be understood to mean that, after stayed proceedings are resumed, the applicable time limits continue to run from the date of the order resuming the proceedings, taking into account the time limits that had already expired prior to the stay of the proceedings.: Rule 296.3 RoP reads as follows: “While…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 2, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_297/2025, UPC_CFI_651/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld the patent-in-suit, which relates to “SHARING MULTIMEDIA CONTENT IN A PEER-TO-PEER CONFIGURATION”, and found that the patent in its upheld version was indirectly infringed by the Disney+ streaming service. The decision focusses on claim construction, validity and some procedural aspects, applying the UPC’s established case law, for example regarding…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 31, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_312/2025
Suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule for applications for rehearing (Art. 81(2) UPCA, R. 252 RoP). : The filing of an application for rehearing against a final decision of the Court of Appeal does not automatically suspend its enforceability. Suspensive effect requires a positive, separate decision of the Court and constitutes a departure…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, UPC 523/2025, Revocation action, issued on September 2, 2026
Lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) and Art. 60(1) EPC requires showing that the proprietor has no rights to the patent.: The requirement in Art. 138(1)(e) EPC that a European patent may be revoked if the proprietor is not entitled under Art. 60(1) EPC should be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor does not have…
2 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025
Rule 116.3 RoP governs the consequences of a party’s non-attendance at the oral hearing, treating them as relying on their written submissions.: If a defendant fails to attend the oral hearing despite being properly summoned, the court may proceed to issue a final decision on the merits rather than a default judgment under Rule 116.5…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC-CoA-61/2026
Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA): In the dispute concerning preliminary measures, two patents were at issue originally, EP201 and EP198. However, the applicant withdrew its request based on EP201…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on Application for Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_135/2026
Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error”: The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art.…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on the Admissibility of the Appeal, UPC-COA-0894/2025
Logging into the CMS via secure two-factor authentication is insufficient to make effective submissions: under Rule 4.1 RoP all pleadings must be signed with a certified electronic signature: The Court of Appeal confirmed that secure authentication to log into the CMS only verifies the user’s identity for system access. It does not replace the mandatory…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 27, 2026, Order to Produce Evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026
R. 190 RoP does not permit fishing expeditions: The purpose of R. 190 RoP is to enable access to specified evidence that is not readily accessible to the party bearing the burden of proof. An order under R. 190 RoP requires reasonably available evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim and is subject to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 24, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action with Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_495/2025 and UPC_CFI_494/2025
A SEP holder is only required to offer a single FRAND-compliant licensing route: pool or bilateral (hn. 1): Competition law does not require a patent holder to offer both a pool licence and a bilateral licence; indicating one route that meets FRAND requirements is sufficient, aligning with prior LD Munich case law (Huawei v Netgear).…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC_CFI_1535/2026
For the assessment of urgency it is relevant when the applicant was able to physically obtain and examine the potentially infringing product: Information obtained earlier is only relevant if such information (e.g. drawings) allow applicant to determine with sufficient certainty whether the potentially infringing product is infringing the patent in suit. The applicant of preliminary…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 25, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_56/2025, UPC_CFI_864/2025
Direct infringement of a product claim turns on objective capability, not the manufacturer’s intended or recommended use: For direct infringement of a product claim under Art. 25(a) UPCA, the decisive factor is whether the accused embodiment is, due to its nature and suitability for use, objectively capable of fulfilling the claim features; regardless of the…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.