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, October 21, 2026, final decision, UPC-CoA-582/2025 et all.
Public prior use: Making available a manufacturing method by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC: A manufacturing method of a publicly used product is made available to the public by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC if, at the application date, the person skilled in the art could establish the method without undue burden by…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 22, 2026, final decision, UPC_CFI_52/2025, UPC_CFI_67/2025
Criteria for assessment of equivalence: Like Panel 1 of the LD Düsseldorf (cf. UPC_CFI_807/2024, decision of May 27, 2026), Panel 2 of the LD Düsseldorf applies the assessment criteria for equivalence under patent law established by the LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239/2023, decision of November 22, 2024; UPC_CFI_479/2025, order of September 11, 2025), as, pursuant to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_145/2026
Discretionary decisions on belated patent amendments under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP are subject to limited appellate review: Applications to amend a patent under Rule 30.2 RoP or amend a case under Rule 263 RoP fall within the first-instance court’s judicial discretion. The Court of Appeal will not substitute its own assessment unless the appellant…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, October 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_684/2025, UPC_CFI_2279/2025
Inventive Step: Starting Points Evaluated as a Whole and Strict Thresholds for Combinations (Art. 56 EPC): A realistic starting point must be evaluated as a comprehensive technical disclosure taken as a whole. Selecting an isolated drawing or embodiment merely because it structurally resembles the invention constitutes impermissible hindsight. Because the skilled person lacks inventive imagination,…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 21, 2026, order on the admissibility of appeals, UPC_CoA_149/2026, UPC_CoA_150/2026
An application to change the language of proceedings before the Central Division is not a claim but an exceptional procedural application (Art. 49(6) UPCA, R. 334(h) RoP): According to established case law, the term “case-management decision or order” (R. 333.1 RoP) is to be interpreted broadly. The rejection of an application to change the language…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 16, 2026, Application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-97/2026
Written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party (R. 4.1 RoP): Written pleadings and other documents must be signed and lodged with the Registry or the relevant sub-registry in electronic form (R. 4.1 RoP). The written pleadings themselves must bear the signature of the party. It is not sufficient for a party’s representative…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, October 22, 2026, procedural order, UPC-CFI-0001913/2026, UPC_CFI_3369/2026
Missing the deadline for a preliminary objection does not in itself establish the UPC’s international jurisdiction: The international jurisdiction of the UPC is, pursuant to Art. 31 UPCA, governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012. According to Art. 26 of that Regulation, concerning prorogation of jurisdiction, the court of the Member State before which…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 9, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_1587/2025
Added-matter objections require identifying the extended subject-matter (Headnote 1, mn. 108 et seq.): The party alleging added matter must identify, by means of a specific comparison, the subject-matter of the original disclosure that is said to have been extended in the laterapplication or divisional patent (Art. 65(2) UPCA, Art. 123(2), 138(1)(c) EPC). A large number…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, October 13, 2026, order on application for leave to appeal, UPC-CoA-88/2026 and UPC-CoA-89/2026
No leave to appeal re. application for re-establishement of rights: Headnote: An application for leave to appeal pursuant to R. 157 RoP in conjunction with R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it concerns a rejection of the application for re-establishment of rights. According to R. 320.7 RoP, there shall be no right to appeal…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 12, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_3452/2026
Alternative service under R. 275.2 RoP may be ordered once formal service attempts fail for reasons attributable to the defendant, provided it is not contrary to the law of the state of service (R. 275.4 RoP): The Court held that insisting on further formal service, once the defendant had actual knowledge of the claim, would…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_146/2026, UPC_CoA_147/2026, UPC_CoA_148/2026
Foreseeable professional commitments and school holidays do not amount to “exceptional circumstances” under R. 9.3(a) RoP: Representatives before the Court are expected to organise their professional activities and make appropriate arrangements within their legal teams so as to ensure compliance with procedural time periods. A heavy workload resulting from other pending cases does not, in…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 12, 2026, review of case management orders, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025
Mandatory fee payment under R. 333.3 is a condition precedent for lodging an application for panel review under R. 333.2 RoP (mn. 22): An application under R. 333 RoP is an autonomous preliminary remedy against case management orders. Under R. 333.3 RoP in conjunction with R. 15.2 RoP, an application is legally deemed not to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 7, 2026, inspection and evidence preservation, UPC_CFI_1332/2026
An order for inspection and/or preservation of evidence requires a sufficient likelihood of infringement : Sufficient, when a patent infringement appears plausible; excessive standards of proof must not be applied. The existence of non-infringing alternatives does not automatically defeat the infringement likelihood unless those alternatives make the applicant’s submission implausible. Additional factors increasing likelihood: Factor…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 21, 2026, Inspection and preservation of evidence, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
Three-step test for determining the scope of the disclosure of the detailed description to be prepared by an expert (confirmation of UPC_CFI_539/2024): Step 1: Does the information in question constitutes a trade secret, personal data, or other confidential information (Art. 58 UPCA)? Step 2: Is the information irrelevant for the question of infringement? If so,…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 8, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_73/2026
The Court of Appeal reviews ex officio whether a statement of appeal is validly signed under R. 224, R. 4.1 RoP, irrespective of when a party raises the objection✓ Even a belated objection by the respondent regarding the signature of the appellant’s statement of appeal must be examined by the Court on its own motion,…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 2, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2660/2026
Alternative service may be authorized under Rule 275.1 RoP upon establishing good reason when standard service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP proves impossible.: Where regular postal delivery under Rule 271.4(a) RoP fails at the registered seat, documents remain uncollected at a postal depot, and the defendant’s known representative declines consensual service, standard service is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, October 6, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_137/2025, UPC_CFI_512/2025
Under Rule 171(2) RoP, a defendant is not required to provide counter-measurements if the claimant’s initial measurements regarding a claim feature are inherently unconvincing and inconclusive✓ Where the claimant’s experimental data fails to isolate the alleged buffering effect from the geometry of multiple casing inlets, the proof remains inconclusive on its face. In such circumstances,…
5 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.