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 Düsseldorf, 3 July 2026, Procedural Orders, UPC_CFI_604/2026 | UPC_CFI_2108/2026
Strict requirements for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP: The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 6, 2026, Decision regarding application to withdraw (R. 265 RoP) and reimbursement of court fees (R. 370.9 RoP), UPC-CoA-29/2026, UPC-CoA-30/2026
R. 265.1 RoP applies equally to withdrawals of appeals and first instance actions, provided no final decision has yet been issued: The CoA confirmed its consistent case law that R. 265.1 RoP, which permits withdrawal of an action before a final decision is issued, applies equally to appeal proceedings. With both appellant and respondent having…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, 3 July 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_302/2025 & UPC_CoA_305/2025
An application for a cost decision must always be filed with the CFI even if the costs arise exclusively from appeal proceedings: Proceedings for cost decision is a distinct, separate procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP, always commencing before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Otherwise, no appeal against cost decisions would be possible…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 02 July 2026, order on security for costs, UPC-CoA-935/2025
Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security for costs only against the applicant: Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security for costs only against the applicant, but not in the applicant’s favour. “Applicant” is the party that initiates the relevant proceedings by lodging the procedural act by which those proceedings are commence (see…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 2, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Ex parte orders re. inspection and preservation of evidence at a trade fair booth can be ordered and executed within days under Art. 60 UPCA, R. 194(d), 196, 197, 199 RoP: The applicant filed an ex parte application for inspection and preseveration of evidence targeting the respondent’s trade fair booth. The UPC granted the requested…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 29, 2026, CoA Partially Overturns Broad Evidence Production Order: Limits on Scope Clarified, UPC_CoA_57/2026
The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers.Appellant appealed,…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, June 26, 2026, Alignment of UPC evidence production with parallel UK national proceedings under R. 190 RoP, UPC_CFI_629/2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025
In an infringement action with a parallel counterclaim for revocation, the court had issued a first R. 190 RoP order (Order I), ordering the claimant to produce seven categories of evidence, which it did. The defendants then filed a second R. 190 RoP application (Application II), arguing that the evidence produced revealed further relevant material…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 29, 2026, Appeal decision on public access to file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information. Appellant challenged the decision,…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 26, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1035/2026
A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP: The defendant’s formal notice reserving rights to claim for a “defect in title” of supplied components established the tangible risk needed for the intervener’s legal interest.This interest was reinforced by…
2 min Reading time→ -
UPC-CoA-066/2026, Decision of the President of the Court of Appeal, 29 June 2026
An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must: a) either demonstrate that the person who filed the application to opt out, at the time of filing the application, was not the person shown in each national patent register for which the European patent was validated as the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 29, 2026, Denies Leave to Appeal Cost Decision
Appeals of cost decisions are subject to a limited ‘marginal review’ for reasonableness and proportionality, not a full re-assessment (R. 221 RoP, R. 156.2 RoP): This limited review is justified because the first-instance judge-rapporteur, who decides on costs in writing under R. 156.2 RoP, has managed the case throughout and is best positioned to assess…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 2 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-19/2026
Urgency for provisional measures is assessed per patent: delaying filing to consolidate all patents into one application can constitute unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP.: A patent holder need not assert all patents in a single application for provisional measures. If sufficient information exists to file regarding some patents, waiting to consolidate all patents into…
6 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 22 June 2026, order on a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP), UPC-CoA 50/2026
Commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) requires relations between defendants regarding commercial activities for the alleged infringing product or range.: These activities include research and development, manufacturing, sales, and distribution of the product or product range. Membership in the same corporate group can establish a commercial link (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) if each defendant’s activity relates to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 22 June 2026, order on appeal against a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP), CoA-4/2026 and CoA-13/2026
Article 33(1), third paragraph UPCA, establishes alternative, not exceptional, competence for the Central Division regarding defendants outside Contracting Member States.: The provisions do not limit the Central Division’s competence for non-CMS defendants, nor does its placement imply a hierarchy over local or regional divisions. The Central Division is competent for defendants domiciled outside CMS (Art.…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 22, 2026, Decision, infringement action UPC_CFI_811/2024
Injunctions are not subject to the five-year limitation period under Art. 72 UPCA — no time bar applies to injunctive relief.: Art. 72 UPCA caps only claims for financial compensation. The deadline runs five years from the moment the claimant learns of the last infringing act. Injunctions, by contrast, look to the future, so this…
5 min Reading time→ -
Central Division (Section Munich), 22 June 2026, order, UPC_CFI_830/2024
EPO Board of Appeal Revocation Renders UPC Revocation Action Devoid of Purpose: EPO Board of Appeal revoking a patent in full renders a parallel UPC revocation action devoid of purpose, triggering disposal under R. 360 RoP without a merits decision Stayed UPC proceedings must be resumed under R. 296.2 RoP once the triggering event —…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_293/2025 & UPC_CFI_868/2025
The date of the withdrawal declaration alone determines which version of Rule 370.9 RoP applies — and therefore the entitlement to a fee refund. When the action originally commenced does not matter.: Rule 370.9 RoP provides the legal basis for reimbursement. Its reimbursement trigger attaches to the withdrawal of the action. The rule entered into…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.