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 Munich, October 11, 2024, cost decision, UPC_CFI_292/2023
No retroactive extension of time period for requesting costs under R. 151 RoP: The Court held that Rule 320 RoP, concerning the restitution of rights, is the lex specialis (more specific rule) and takes precedence over the general provision of Rule 9.3(a) RoP when a party misses a deadline and seeks to restore its right to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, October 17, 2024, Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, UPC_CFI_252/2023
Parallel national action: The Court must examine its international jurisdiction of its own motion when this is required under Union law. Pursuant to Art. 30 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, the UPC may stay proceedings (based on its discretionary power) where a related action is pending in a national court. Admissibility of auxiliary requests:…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Lisbon, October 15, 2024, order dismissing PI based on patent infringement, UPC_CFI_317/2024
Challenging territorial competence requires more than denying infringement: The court held that simply denying infringement does not constitute a valid challenge to territorial competence under Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA. Defendants must directly address and refute the “territorial connection element” to successfully contest jurisdiction. The court emphasized the distinction between a jurisdictional challenge and a…
4 min Reading time→ -
Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/06/2024
Determining the scope of protection based on the patent claim: The patent claim is always to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art. The skilled person takes into account the purpose of every patent claim to provide them with a technical teaching which, when reworked, leads to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, September 27, 2024, Procedural Order on Security of Costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
50% of ceiling of recoverable costs as security during written proccedings: The Respondent is a limited company which was registered 7 months before the present infringement action was filed and has only one employee besides the managing director. It’s business model is exclusively characterized by the enforcement of patents, namely the patent-in-suit, and asserting corresponding…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 1, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_380/2024
High threshold for intervention in interim injunction proceedings: The Court rejected the request (here: from Menarini) for intervention, emphasizing that Article 313 RoP permits intervention in interim injunction proceedings only under exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that a third party might be affected by the outcome of the proceedings is not sufficient. Rather, the third…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 2, 2024, Substantive Order, UPC_CFI_153/2024
Patent pool administrators have a direct legal interest in litigations concerning patents within their pools: The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit. This interest stems from…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2024, Ordner in relation to R. 220.3 RoP and deadlines in R29(d) RoP, UPC_CoA_543/2024
Deadlines when Confidential Information are included: This decision clarifies that the deadline for a Defendant’s reply (in German “Duplik”) under Rule 29(d) RoP, when confidential information is involved, begins upon filing the initial Plaintiff’s reply, even if redacted. The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging differing practices across Local Divisions, found no misinterpretation of the RoP…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 2, Procedural Order on Security for Costs UPC_CFI_54/2024
US-based NPE has to provide security: The Claimant is a non-practicing entity with no operational business. Its business model appears to be based solely on revenues expected from patent litigation. The Claimant owns no other assets other than the patents used in multiple worldwide litigations and it has failed to substantially challenge these reasons and…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 17, 2024, Order in appeal proceedings against a decision in first instance revocation proceedings, UPC_CoA_227/2024
Application of Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation concerning lis pendens: The CoA found that Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply during the transitional period defined in Article 83 UPCA, even if national proceedings commenced before this period. This interpretation aims to prevent conflicting decisions arising…
3 min Reading time→ -
RD Nordic-Baltic, September 18, 2024, Procedural Order on a request for access to the written pleadings and evidence, UPC_CFI_8/2023
Requirements for a “reasoned request” for access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP: The UPC clarified that a “reasoned request” under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires more than a general interest. The applicant must provide a specific and credible explanation for needing access to court documents, demonstrating a genuine need beyond publicly available information In this case, the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, September 16, 2024, Order on the need for confidentiality, UPC_CFI_164/2024
This decision highlights the importance of ensuring representatives before the UPC are independent, as required by Article 48(5) UPCA. The court emphasized that representatives cannot be employees or individuals with significant financial ties to the represented party.: In this case, the claimant’s representative’s position as managing director and main shareholder was found to compromise their…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, September 16, 2024, Order on Manifest Inadmissibility, UPC_CFI_164/2024
High threshold for “manifestly inadmissible” under Rule 361 RoP: The Court held that “manifest inadmissibility” must be established prima facie on the basis of simple factual findings. This interpretation promotes procedural efficiency by enabling the quick dismissal of baseless claims while ensuring potentially complex legal issues are addressed at the appropriate stage. In this case,…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, September 24, 2024, order on request to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_298/2024, UPC_CoA_299/2024, UPC_CoA_300/2024
Both, claimant and defendant can rely on R. 190.1 RoP to request an order to produce evidence.: In view of the principle of equality of arms, Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190.1 RoP have a broader scope than the initial wording may suggest (evidence in support of its claims). The purpose of these provisions is…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 23 September 2024, Public access to file, UPC_CFI_189/2024
Public access to file – general principles: As found by the Court of Appeal (see order of 10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023), the general principle laid down in the UPCA is that the register is public and the proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interests involved is such that they are to…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 25, 2024, Procedural Order on a Counterclaim for revocation – Standing to be sued, UPC_CFI_114/2024 UPC_CFI_448/2024
Background: A common situation in patent litigation is that a patent has (allegedly) been assigned from one legal entity (assignor) to another (assignee) and that the assignee asserts the patent before being entered as proprietor into the register. This decision addresses the question who the alleged infringer (defendant) can sue in a counterclaim for revocation.…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, September 25, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_182/2024
Background and first instance decision: This decision relates to an appeal regarding a decision on provisional measures and, in particular, answers the question whether submissions from the main proceedings (and related counterclaim for revocation) are to be considered during the appeal stage of provisional measures. The first instance had issued a preliminary injunction in ex…
7 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.