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, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_302/2025, CoA_305/2025
Cost determination proceedings must always be initiated at the Court of First Instance, regardless of whether costs arise from first instance or appeal (R. 150 et seq. RoP): The cost determination procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP is a separate proceeding that must be filed with the Court of First Instance. The RoP does…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CoA_409/2025, UPC_CoA_410/2025, UPC_CoA_420/2025
Logging into the UPC’s Case Management System does not constitute an “entering of an appearance” to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.: The mere access to the file, before any active step or defense, is however not sufficient to establish a deliberate choice regarding the jurisdiction of the UPC. Another step is required in…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_899/2025
Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).: By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Defendant in first instance has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026
A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP. : Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the defendants’ request for alignment of the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, March 30, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_258/2025
The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features.: Following the revocation of an independent claim, the patent proprietor may amend the patent to recast surviving dependent claims into independent form, provided the resulting configuration complies…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_898/2025
Asserting a patent in a non-registered claim version is not categorically excluded in provisional measures proceedings; admissibility depends on the circumstances of each case (R. 211.2 RoP).: There is no automatic additional burden on the Appellee from assertion of a non-registered version. Whether the specific version is suitable for provisional measures is a case-by-case determination.…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order on Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_44/2026
Granting suspensive effect requires exceptional circumstances where the appellant’s interest outweighs the respondent’s enforcement interest (Art. 74(1) UPCA): The Court of Appeal confirmed that suspensive effect is an exception to the general rule. The appellant must show that its interest in maintaining the status quo until the appeal is decided outweighs the respondent’s interest in…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2296/2025
The list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive and cannot be extended to other defences such as lack of standing to sue or res judicata: The court confirmed, in line with the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Aylo v. DISH/SLING (UPC_CoA_188/2024) and Roku/Sun (UPC_CoA_288/2025), that Rule 19.1 RoP only permits objections on…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1849/2025
Fairness-based language change requires balancing all relevant circumstances; if interests are equal, the defendant’s position is decisive (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP): The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field, language of exhibits) and party-related circumstances (nationality, domicile, size, internal working language, coordination possibilities).…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_935/2025
The priciple of front loaded prodeedings also applies to applications for suspensive effect according to R. 223 RoP: An application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence, and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to present one’s full case as early…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1049/2025
The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025): According to Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025, the revised rules re. the Table of Court…
2 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_519/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2025
Advertising materials are not covered by Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and therefore cannot be ordered destroyed: The Court granted destruction of infringing products, but expressly excluded advertising materials. It held that Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA covers products and the materials and equipment relevant to their production, not mere promotional materials depicting the products. The Court also refused…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 18, 2026, Order concerning an appeal against an order denying a request under R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_930/2025
Information disclosed to the other party without a confidentiality restriction will generally lose protection as a trade secret or other confidential information: The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated without restriction. Where information has been…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning review of an ex parte order for inspection, UPC_CoA_3/2026
In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it: The Court of Appeal emphasizes that, in ex parte proceedings, the applicant’s duty is not limited to presenting the facts supporting the requested inspection. Under R. 192.3 RoP, the applicant must also…
3 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_135/2024, UPC_CFI_477/2024
In the FRAND context, a dominant position may exist where consumers expect standard-compliant smart TVs to decode all video codecs covered by the standard: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard cannot realistically be marketed without…
3 min Reading time→ -
Brussels LD, March 18, 2026, Procedural Order (R. 158 RoP)(II), UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
The Brussels Local Division did not consider enforcement of a UPC costs order in Costa Rica to be unduly burdensome on the evidence presented: The Court held that the defendants had not shown that recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica were “unduly burdensome” within the meaning of the UPC case law. In particular, the…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.