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
-
Brussels LD, March 18, 2026, Procedural Order (R. 158 RoP)(II), UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
The Brussels Local Division did not consider enforcement of a UPC costs order in Costa Rica to be unduly burdensome on the evidence presented: The Court held that the defendants had not shown that recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica were “unduly burdensome” within the meaning of the UPC case law. In particular, the…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, March 13, 2026, Order on Application for Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_927/2025
Key takeaway Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA / R. 158 RoP may be ordered where the claimant’s own financial situation gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a future costs award may not be recoverable or enforceable.: When assessing security for costs, the UPC looks at the financial position of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning a Preliminary Objection, UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
A preliminary objection may also be deferred to the main proceedings by the panel, not only by the judge-rapporteur: The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone. Where the matter has been referred to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 13, 2026, Order on Preliminary Objections Concerning International Jurisdiction, UPC_CoA_922/2025, UPC_CoA_923/2025, UPC_CoA_924/2025, UPC_CoA_925/2025
The Statement of claim must already set out the facts and legal arguments establishing the UPC’s jurisdiction.: The Court of Appeal makes clear that, as a rule, the claimant must already set out in the Statement of claim the facts and legal arguments necessary to establish the UPC’s jurisdiction. That applies especially where the claimant…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, March 13, 2026, Order and Decision on Costs, UPC_CFI_722/2025
A revocation action becomes devoid of purpose once the patent has been finally revoked in EPO opposition proceedings: The Milan Central Division held that, once the Opposition Division had revoked the patent in its entirety and that decision had become final because no appeal was filed, the UPC revocation action no longer served any purpose…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025
Court adopts functional claim construction, rejecting narrow interpretations (Art. 69 EPC): The court found that a “switchable device” is not limited to mechanical optics but includes electronic controls. “Coupling” does not require free-space propagation, and a “different second laser beam” does not necessitate a separate laser source or different wavelength. This functional approach was decisive…
5 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Munich, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024
The “attacked embodiment” is defined by the claimant’s asserted technical features, not just specific product examples, and can include unknown or future products.: The claimant can exemplify infringement on a sample product. The burden then shifts to the defendant to specifically dispute why other listed products do not fall under this definition. Registration in the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Requests for further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP are assessed through a two-pronged balancing test weighing the party’s reasons against the impact on proceedings and delay risk.: The Court must take into account the reasons put forward by the requesting party as to why further pleadings are necessary. The Court must also weigh the…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_141/2026
Rule 14.2(b) RoP is an exception to the general language-of-proceedings rules and must be interpreted restrictively (Rule 14.2(b) RoP, Art. 49(1), Art. 49(2) UPCA).: The provision requires proceedings to be conducted in the official language of the Contracting Member State only if two specific conditions are both met. As an exception, this rule cannot be…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_934/2025
Rule 265 RoP applies to applications for provisional measures, not only to “actions” in the narrow sense.: The Court of Appeal clarified that the term “action” (Klage) in Rule 265.1 RoP encompasses applications for provisional measures. The withdrawal mechanism is therefore not limited to main proceedings such as infringement or revocation actions but extends to…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Decision, UPC_COA_895/2025 & UPC_COA_896/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted under R. 265(1) RoP where the respondent consents and has no legitimate interest in the action being decided.: Under R. 265.1 RoP, a party may withdraw its action as long as no final decision has been rendered. The withdrawal shall not be permitted if the other party has a legitimate interest…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 10, 2026, Order, Retroactive Time Extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP – UPC_CoA_37/2026
R. 9.3(a) RoP, not R. 320 RoP, governs deadline extensions for written submissions in ongoing proceedings: R. 320 RoP applies only where missing a time limit causes a party to lose a substantive right or means of redress, such as the right to initiate appeal proceedings or to challenge default judgments. Failure to meet a…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 – Provisional Measures for Hair Care Appliance Attachment Patent
Claim construction must balance function and structure: interpreting structural claim features solely by their function is insufficient; the physical and spatial configuration taught by the patent must equally be considered (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on Interpretation).: In the specific case the Court of Appeal held that an “overlap” in the patent claim must be geometrically…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, Infringement Action, February 24, 2026, UPC_CFI_619/2025
Broad injunctive relief covers future product variants without claim amendment (R. 263 RoP): Following the CoA’s Abbott/Sibio ruling (UPC_CoA_328/2024), a claimant requesting general injunctive relief covering patent claims can capture future product variants without amending its claim, provided the prayer for relief is drafted broadly enough, e.g., including “further versions or variants thereof.” Amendment to…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 26, 2026, request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_34/2026
A penalty order under R. 354.4 RoP is appealable only via the leave-to-appeal mechanism: The appellant argued that the CFI’s reference to R. 354.4 RoP in the impugned order created the impression that leave to appeal had already been granted, analogous to Total v. Texas Instruments (CoA_651/2024). The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 27, 2026, request for further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CoA_884/2025
Requests, facts and evidence from first instance automatically form part of appeal proceedings (R. 222.1 and R. 222.2 RoP): The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response. The judge-rapporteur rejected this application, finding no justification for reopening…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 3, 2026, order on a R.265 RoP application and determination of value in dispute, UPC_CoA_887/2025
A claimant can withdraw an action for provisional measures even during a pending appeal, with the defendant’s consent, closing proceedings at both instances (R. 265.1, R. 265.2 RoP).: The Court permitted the withdrawal requested by the claimant and consented to by the defendant, as no final decision had been made. Upon withdrawal of an action,…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.