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 Milan, July 10, 2026, Order – Alignment of Defence Deadlines for Co-Defendants Where Service Abroad Is Pending, UPC CFI 1902/2025
The claimant filed an infringement action against two co-defendants before the Milan Local Division. One defendant (based in China) had already been served and was facing an imminent deadline to file its statement of defence. The other defendant (based in Hong Kong) had not yet been served – with no certainty as to when service…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 10, 2026, decision by default, UPC_CFI_766/2024
Deliberate copying combined with continued infringement despite a provisional injunction establishes the infringer’s knowledge, triggering the stricter damages standard of Art. 68 (1) UPCA: Where a defendant knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engages in infringing activity, the Court must order damages appropriate to the harm actually suffered (Art. 68 (1) UPCA), rather than…
6 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, July 16, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-42/2026
A former employee may join a confidentiality club on the condition of signing a separate, penalized confidentiality agreement with the party they previously worked for: The respondent argued that their former employee had already been part of the Confidentiality Club established in the first instance. He or she should now also be part of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order concerning an appeal in a revocation action, UPC-CoA-861/2025
A claimant must bear costs if itunnecessarily initiates a revocation action against a defendant who has not given cause and surrenders the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings (Art. 69 (1), (2) UPCA): The CoA held that the principles of equity required that the prevailing claimant had to bear the costs even if…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-94/2026
An application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, if no final decision has been issued and the opposing party consents, thereby demonstrating that the opposing party has no interest in a decision being made: The CFI found the patent-in-suit to be infringend and dismissed the Counterclaim for…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, UPC_CoA_360/2025, Decision
The right to a court fee refund upon withdrawal is governed by the rules in force on the date of the withdrawal request, not the filing date of the action (R. 370.9 RoP): The Court held that the triggering event for a refund claim is the withdrawal itself. Therefore, amendments to R. 370.9 RoP apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 14 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-76/2026
Suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP may be partially granted on a prima facie basis where thrid-country export controls impede immediate compliance: The Court of Appeal accepted, on a prima facie basis, that: (i) Chinese export-control law applied to the materials; (ii) required administrative procedures were incompatible with the fixed deadline; and (iii) non-compliance could…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 15 July 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_68/2026 – UPC_CoA_72/2026
Court Fees of an Appeal shall be paid in accordance with CFI’s Value of the Action : As a general principle, fees shall be paid in accordance with the value of the action as determined by the Court of First Instance. The parties are not entitled to unilaterally determine or amend the value of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal – Clarification on a conditional counterclaim for revocation – UPC-CoA-40/2026, 16 July 2026, Emboline, Inc. v. AorticLab, srl
Headnotes: Limiting a counterclaim for revocation by making it conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. There is a need for clarification on such a conditional counterclaim if and when the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance. In the event of an appeal by the infringement…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, UPC_CoA_79/2026
Withdrawal before service on respondents is admissible; respondents need not be heard under R. 265.1 RoP if they have no legitimate interest in continuation.: Since the statement of appeal was still undergoing formal examination under R. 229 RoP and had not yet been served on the respondents, the respondents had no legitimate interest in having…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal – Right to Be Heard, Manifest Error, and Suspensive Effect in UPC Patent Appeal Proceedings – UPC-CoA-93/2026, 15 July 2026, Siemens Healthineers AG v. Hologic, Inc.
Headnotes: The principle of the right to be heard according to Art. 76(2) UPCA obliges the court to take note of and give due consideration to the submissions of the parties to the proceedings. Among other things, this principle requires the court to deal with the essential substance of a party’s submissions and, insofar as…
7 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 10, 2026, request for a discretionary review, UPC_CoA_95/2026
Discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP requires demonstrating manifest error or a fundamental question of law with systemic implications purely case.: The Court of Appeal confirmed the standard established in earlier decisions: discretionary review is available only where the contested order is manifestly erroneous or raises a fundamental legal question with broader implications for the…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_473/2025
Defending Dependent Claims Without Formal Amendment: A patentee can defend dependent claims without filing a formal application to amend under Rule 30 RoP; R. 30 RoP does not require that the patentee submit an auxiliary request as a prerequisite for defending dependent claims. An Application to amend the patent is only required if the patentee…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 8, 2026, appeal decision regarding request for provisional measures, UPC-CoA-36/2026
An invalidity attack filed for the first time on appeal, will be considered inadmissible absent a compelling justification for its late submission (R. 222.2 RoP): When exercising its discretion under R. 222.2 RoP, the CoA weighs the justification for the late submission, its relevance to the appeal, and the position of the opposing party. A…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, July 3, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_723/2025
Broad concept of “offering” pursuant to Art. 25(a) UPCA: The term “offering” must be interpreted autonomously and in an economic sense. It is sufficient to present an item so that a viewer can make an offer to acquire it (invitatio ad offerendum). Thus, neither price indication nor ability to deliver is required. The Court expressly…
6 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.