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, July 9, 2025, order, UPC_CoA_430/2025
Case management orders, such as orders concerning security for costs, require panel review before appeal: R. 333.1 RoP mandates that case maagement orders issued by the judge-rapporteur (e.g. security for costs orders) must be reviewed by the panel of the CFI before an appeal to the CoA is admissible: Judge-rapporteur’s decision to grant leave to…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 9, 2025, order concerning security for costs, UPC_CoA_431/2025
Failure to lodge Statement of response within the time limit of R. 235.2 RoP: Under R. 9.2 RoP the Court may disregard any step, fact, evidence or argument which a party has not taken or submitted in accordance with a time limit. The CoA will, however, have to examine whether the grounds of appeal are…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, July 22, 2025, decision on withdrawal of cost assessment application, UPC_CoA_845/2024
Jurisdiction for Cost Assessment: The Court of Appeal clarified that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over cost assessment applications. The applicant had mistakenly filed the application with the Court of Appeal instead of the competent Local Division. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant for cost assessment to withdraw their application without…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 21, 2025, order on harmonization of time periods, UPC_CFI_79/2025
Harmonizing Time Limits in Joint Proceedings: When a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) is filed jointly with a statement of defense, the time limit for responding to the CCR begins only after the claimant receives the substantive content of the CCR. This ensures procedural fairness and alignment between the infringement and revocation proceedings. Division Local Division…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 22, 2025, order on evidence preservation and inspection, UPC_CFI_63/2025
Deadline Length vs. Starting Point: The court clarified the distinction between a deadline’s length and starting point under Rule 198.1 RoP. While the length is prescribed, the court can determine the starting point, especially considering the expert report’s due date (Rule 196.4 RoP). Discretion to Change Starting Point: The court can adjust the starting point,…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 22, 2025, order on joinder of infringement actions, UPC_CFI_132/2025, UPC_CFI_130/2025
Joinder of Infringement Actions: Parallel infringement cases concerning the same patent and product were joined under Rule 302 RoP for efficient case management. Division Local Division Paris UPC number UPC_CFI_132/2025 UPC_CFI_130/2025 Type of proceedings Place type of proceedings Parties Place parties Patent(s) Place patent(s) Jurisdictions Place jurisdictions Body of legislation / Rules Rule 5 RoP,…
1 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, July 22, 2025, decision by default on the revocation action, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Default Judgment on Revocation: Failure to comply with a court order (Rule 158 RoP) for security for costs can result in the dismissal of a revocation action by default (Rule 355.2 RoP), especially when the opposing party requests it. Non-compliance with a legally issued order and a request by a party are prerequisites for a…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 23, 2025, order on withdrawal of appeal, UPC_CoA_526/2025
Withdrawal of Appeal and Partial Reimbursement of Fees: The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw their appeal after an out-of-court settlement, as the respondent consented and had no further legitimate interest in the proceedings (R. 265 RoP). The appellant received a 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees, as the withdrawal occurred before the written proceedings…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 24, 2025 order on value in dispute in the case of a FRAND counterclaim, UPC_CFI_850/2024
The value in dispute for FRAND counterclaims is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action: A FRAND counterclaim expands the subject matter beyond the infringement action, especially if not limited to the patent-in-suit, and its value is determined by the scope of the license sought. Therefore, the introduction of a FRAND…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_359/2023
The UPC does not have jurisdiction to revoke the validated national part of a European Patent in relation to the United Kingdom with erga omnes effect: According to the ECJ’s ruling in BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the Member State of the European Union in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation)…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement of the UK part of a EuropeanPatent: This applies as far as the infringement action relates to acts infringing the UK national part of the patent-in-suit. Whether infringement is given and an injunction and/or other measures can be granted has to be assessed under UK law.…
2 min Reading time→ -
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, July 21, 2025, decision in first instance, UPC_CFI_380/2023
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent: The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 16, 2025, Order concerning an application for compensation
Withdrawal of Actions: Parties may withdraw actions and counterclaims before a final decision if there’s no legitimate interest in continuing according to R. 265.1 RoP, as is the case with settlements.In this case, both the claimant and the defendant withdrew their respective action and counterclaim after reaching a settlement. Withdrawal of Compensation Applications: Applications for…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 15, 2025, review of orders to preserve evidence, UPC_CoA_327/2025, UPC_CoA_002/2025
A request for preserving evidence does not require that this measure is sought without unreasonable delay. : It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for preserving evidence (R. 194.2(a) RoP) and the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for provisional measures (R. 209.2(b)…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, July 16, 2025, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_484/2025
Information on litigation costs does not justify confidentiality order vis-à-vis parties (R. 262A), but shall be treated confidential vis-à-vis the public (R. 262.2 RoP). : The information regarding the litigation costs does not concern the main subject matter of the (revocation) proceedings and does not directly influence claimant´s business activities. Defendant has a right to…
3 min Reading time→ -
President of the CFI, July 16, 2025, order on change of language of the proceedings, UPC_CFI_351/2025
For language of the proceedings, particular consideration is attached to defendant’s working environment and communication channels by which legal and technical departments are expected to provide support in preparing their defence on the alleged infringement. : When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 16, 2025, Order concerning request for the extension of time periods
Extension of time periods requires balancing the interests of the parties, the court, and the public (R. 9.3(a) RoP): Extensions are granted only in justified exceptional circumstances to ensure efficient proceedings. The court considers whether the requested extension will jeopardize the preparation of the oral hearing (reason 2.c)). In this case, the Defendants’ request for…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.