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 Duesseldorf, June 27, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Deadline Extensions due to R. 242A RoP applications in FRAND proceedings: If the Defendant deals extensively with license negotiations between itself and a patent pool in the context of the substantiation of the FRAND objection raised by it, the Claimant can only respond comprehensively to this argument if he can consult with employees of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, June 26, 2024, order, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Independence of a counsellor is measured with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party : The fact that the representative of a party is also the inventor of the patent-in-suit, the original applicant of the application underlying the patent-in-suit and the managing director of the first assignee of the patent does…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Duesseldorf, June 26, 2024, procedual order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Direct and present interest of the Intervener: The legal interest required for the admissibility of the intervention is given if the Intervener has a direct and present interest in the issuance of the order or decision requested by the assisted party. Such a legal interest can be affirmed if the patent in suit has been…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 24, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_456/2023
If access to written pleadings is restricted to representatives only according to R. 262A RoP, this is regularly a reason for the extension of time limits: R. 9.3 (a) RoP authorizes the court to extend time limits. However, this option should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. Such an exceptional…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, June 25, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_195/2024
Applicant/Defendant has to bear the cost of simultaneous interpretation in the case of a Polish translation : To effectively meet the requirements of the fundamental right to be heard, it is important to allow parties to use simultaneous interpreter(s) if they deem this necessary to enable them to fully participate in the oral hearing that…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 26, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of an EP under Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC: The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 12, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_425/2023
In case of multiple defendants in an infringement action, it is reasonable for the Judge-Rapporteur to extend the deadline for filing of a Statement of Defence to align the deadlines for all defendants: In the present case, service of the Statement of Claim was delayed for one of the three defendants. According to Rule 23…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 12, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_395/2023
In case of multiple defendants in an infringement action, it is reasonable for the Judge-Rapporteur to extend the deadline for filing of a Statement of Defence to align the deadlines for all defendants: In the present case, service of the Statement of Claim was delayed for some of the fourteen defendants. According to Rule 23…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 2, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_14/2023
Request of referral of a counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division by the parties (Art. 33(3)(c) UPCA): According to Article 33(3)(c) UPCA, a Local Division may refer the case for decision to the central division based on the agreement of the parties. Strong counterarguments would be necessary for the Local Division not to grant…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, April 9, 2024, Order concerning clarification of the date of service, UPC_CoA_86/2024
In appeal proceedings the rules concerning service (R. 270-279 RoP) apply mutatis mutandis: In appeal proceedings, Chapter 2 – Service (Rules 270 – 279 RoP) applies mutatis mutandis. Consequently, if R. 271.1 RoP applied during the proceedings at the Court of First Instance (in short: an electronic address for service was provided by the defendant…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 9, 2024, Order regarding R. 9 RoP extension request, UPC_CFI_501/2023
No time extension due to change of language of the proceedings: An extension of the deadline to file the statement of defense according to R. 9.3 RoP was rejected. The change of language of the proceedings one month before the deadline to file the statement of defense was not considered a justification for such an…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 11, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_4952023
Multiple defendants and competence of the division: In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, April 10, 2024, public access to the register, UPC_CoA_404/2023
Art. 9(1) UPCA – no technically qualified judges required: Art. 9(1) UPCA must be interpreted such that if the subject matter of the appeal proceedings is of a non-technical nature only, and there are no technical issues at stake, the Court of Appeal may decide the matter without the need to assign two technically qualified…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, April 11, 2024, request for a decision by default, UPC_CoA_79/2024
Time period for filing a statement of appeal under R.220.2 RoP: If an appeal is lodged under R.220.2 RoP and leave is granted in the impugned order itself, the statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave (R.224.1(b) RoP). If the decision to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, Preliminary objection of a revocation action, May 2, 2024, UPC_CFI-484/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction for the central revocation action even if a prior national revocation action is pending: The asserted patent is only validated in Germany. In 2021, Nokia Solutions and Networks GmbH & Co. KG filed a national revocation action with the German Federal Patent Court (GFPC) against the proprietor (Mala Technologies), which was…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, 6 June 2024, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_241/2023
Request for information regarding distribution channels: Showing a product at a trade fair in the territory covered by the patent does not automatically create evidence of market entry – burden of proof is with the claimant. A claimant’s request for declaration of defendant’s chain of sale/resale is not justified in case that defendant confirms that…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 13 June 2024, Order of the Court of first instance, UPC_CFI_219/2023
Extension of time limit (only) for response to redacted FRAND submission: Claimant filed its reply brief with heavy redactions re. the FRAND part. Hence, upon Defendant’s request the deadline for filing its rejoinder brief was extended as it relates to these redactions. However, as the parts re. infringement and validity of the patent were not…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.