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, August 3, 2026, order concerning penalty orders, UPC-CoA-28/2026
If the Court of Appeal revokes a first-instance decision in merits proceedings in which orders were granted under recurring penalty payments, the revocation has retroactive effect and the order must be regarded as never having had any legal effect. : The revocation of an order of the Court of First Instance granting a permanent injunction…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 30, 2026, order concerning a preliminary objection, UPC-CFI-1901/2026
Re lis pendens (Art. 29 Brussels I recast): – Here, the UPC was not “the court first seized” based on the date on which the application for provisional measures was filed before the UPC.– The earlier application for provisional measures before the UPC and the later filed national French action for revocation of the SPC,…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, August 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_121/2026
Suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223.2 RoP is granted only exceptionally, where the applicant proves its interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest.: Relying on its own case law, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an exception may apply if the impugned…
2 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Munich, July 29, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_515/2026, UPC_CFI_1797/2026
An “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP need not be the complete original file. An excerpt reproducing the protected information can suffice.: The decisive criterion is whether the submitted document reveals the specific information or evidence for which restriction is sought under R. 262A.1 RoP, not whether it is technically unprocessed or complete. R. 262A.3…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 5, 2026, order on an application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_118/2026, UPC_CoA_119/2026, UPC_CoA_120/2026
Admissibility of appeals requires that the appellant is adversely affected by the first-instance decision under Art. 73(2) UPCA and R. 220.1 and 220.2 RoP.: An appeal by the claimant is inadmissible if the first-instance order did not rule on the admissibility of the counterclaim against the claimant, but only against the intervener. The claimant is…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 6, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_1569/2025
A request to raise or lower the ceiling for recoverable costs must be clear and explicit.: A request to adjust the cost ceiling (Article 2(4) of the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023 on the scale of recoverable costs ceilings) is only deemed to have been made if it is clear and…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 18, 2026, time extension request, UPC_CFI_1963/2025, UPC_CFI_1247/2026
The burden of diligence to obtain access to a non-confidential version of a brief lies with the party seeking it: Where an unredacted version of a brief (marked highly confidential “HC” in the CMS, only accessible to the court) is filed simultaneously with a redacted version (marked mutual “M” in the CMS, accessible to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 27, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
An applicant’s predominantly personal interest in access to the register may result in strict confidentiality obligations under Rule 262.2 RoP: When deciding on a confidentiality request under Rule 262.2 RoP, the Court may take into account that the applicant has a predominantly personal interest in accessing the register. As a result, the Court may apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 28, 2026, request to change the language of the proceedings, UPC_CFI_1146/2026
The request to change the language of proceedings may be lodged prior to the statement of defense : Art. 49 (5) does not require the application for a language change to be included in the statement of defence. R. 323.3 must accordingly be interpreted in such a manner that it does not preclude the lodging…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, July 23, 2026, Decision on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_2192/2026
Public access during ongoing proceedings requires a specific interest: Granting access to a case file is the general rule and restricting access is the exception (Sec. 7). However, where proceedings are still ongoing, public access to the register requires a “more specific” or “direct legitimate” interest of the applicant to override the interest in protecting…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 24, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
Admissibility of public access requests under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a specific application: A member of the public must submit a reasoned request explaining the purpose of the requested access and specify the documents and evidence sought as precisely as possible (Sec. 15). In this regard it is sufficient that applicant wants to better undestand…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 29, 2026, Order on subsequent request to amend the patent and on late submissions, UPC_CFI_530/2025
A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP is only admissible under exceptional and cumulative circumstances: The claimant must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been filed earlier with reasonable diligence, and that it does not unreasonably hinder the defendant(s) in conducting the proceedings. Both conditions must be met cumulatively (see…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 30, 2026, Order on Cost Security, UPC_CFI_2216/2025, UPC_CFI_1829/2026
Minimum share capital and microenterprise structure are per se not sufficient to justify security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP: The Court held that (i) claimant’s minimum share capital of EUR 19,700 and (ii) its microenterprise structure were in themselves insufficient circumstances to assess a company’s financial soundness. A relatively modest…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, July 29, 2026, Decision on confirmation of a settlement, UPC_CFI_757/2024
Agreement on costs confirmed and rendered enforceable pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP: The Court held that R. 365.1 RoP (Confirmation by the Court of a settlement) applies to settlements limited to costs. As long as the settlement resolves an existing or potential dispute, regardless of whether it is submitted pending main proceedings on the merits…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 27, 2026, Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises, UPC_CFI_1746/2026, UPC_CFI_1747/2026, UPC_CFI_1751/2026, UPC_CFI_1752/2026
Art. 60(1) UPCA is a lex specialis displacing general confidentiality rules under Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262, 262A RoP in evidence preservation proceedings (Sec. 30): While Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP grant the Court a discretion to order confidentiality measures to protect confidential information, Art. 60(1) UPCA mandatorily requires the…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, July 29, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_1902/2025
Pragmatic solution for alignment of deadlines and service : The Claimant lodged an infringement action against two Defendants, Ziwu registered in China and Resosport registered in Hong Kong. Service was duly effected on Ziwu but not on Resosport. Ziwu thus requested an alignment of deadlines against acceptance of service by Resosport. Claimant opposed to the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, July 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_894/2026
“Withdrawal” of confidential document possible before adversary’s access: The Court acceded to the request of the Claimant to withdraw a confidential document by ordering that the unredacted version of the document be disregarded. The confidential document will not become accessible to the Defendant but will remain in the CMS. Initially, the Claimant submitted an unredacted…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.