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
-
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_99/2026 & UPC_CoA_110/2026
No stay of appeal proceedings under R. 118.2(b) and R. 242.2(a) RoP where the pending nullity action is not between the same parties.: A stay of appeal proceedings pending a decision on invalidity under R. 118.2(b) and R. 242.2(a) RoP requires that the nullity action be pending between the same parties. A nullity action brought…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CoA_126/2026
Even if the defendant has filed the counterclaim for revocation only conditionally, the defendant may still file an appeal: A defendant who has filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation has a legitimate interest in appealing a first-instance decision refusing to rule on an action for revocation, even after it has been determined that there was…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_40/2026
No further pleadings or evidence are permitted once the appellate proceedings have reached an advanced procedural stage: The Court confirmed its broad case-management discretion to prevent additional written submissions at a late stage, consistent with the RoP’s objective of efficient, front-loaded proceedings. An appellant’s request to disregard a witness statement and related submissions as late-filed,…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 15, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025
Digital simulations cannot replace direct examination of the attacked products to prove non-infringement: The defendant relied on simulations rather than examining the real attacked optics, despite having had ample opportunity to do so since service of the statement of claim. The Court held this choice does not justify a further briefing right or additional evidence-taking…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2026, order, UPC_CoA_164/2026
Application for public access to the register: An application for public access to the register must be filed in the language of the proceedings. Division Court of Appeal UPC number UPC-CoA-164/2026 Type of proceedings Application for public access to the register proceedings Parties Hurtel Sp. z o.o. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Patent(s) EP 2 867 997…
1 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 28, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Re-establishment of Rights for Appeal Concerning Conditional Revocation Counterclaims
Re-establishment of rights (R. 320.1 RoP) requires showing that appeal deadlines were missed despite all due care due to reasons beyond control. Under Rule 320.1 RoP, a party may obtain re-establishment of rights if it missed a statutory deadline despite exercising all due care required by the circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate that the failure…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 18 September 2026, decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_575/2025 and UPC_CFI_1135/2025
A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP): – The defendants relied on a licence agreement also disputed in parallel Dutch proceedings, but only referred to the submissions in the Dutch proceedings…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, 18 September 2026, appeal against a cost decision, UPC_CoA_121/2026
Under Art. 74(2) UPCA, appeals against revocation decisions have automatic suspensive effect, preserving patent status erga omnes, unlike the general rule in Art. 74(1) UPCA: – This automatic effect reflects the specific nature of validity decisions, which apply erga omnes. Unlike Art. 74(1) UPCA, where suspensive effect requires a motivated request showing exceptional circumstances, Art.…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 21, 2026, order regarding an appeal against an order rejecting a preliminary objection, UPC_CoA_90/2026
Filing a declaration of non-infringement before patent grant raises a question of admissibility, not of UPC competence, under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA: – Competence pursuant to Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA depends on the claimant’s actual intent in its statement of claim. Because the claimants sought a declaration of non-infringement against granted patents, the action falls within the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 29, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-140/2026: Calculation and Reimbursement of Court Fees for Revocation Counterclaim Appeals
Appeals concerning revocation counterclaims incur first-instance fees plus 10% under R. 228 and R. 370.5(a) RoP, subject to a pre-increase cap. Under Rule 228 and Rule 370.5(a) RoP, the fee for appealing a revocation counterclaim under Rule 220.1(a) RoP equals the first-instance counterclaim fee increased by 10%. This fee mirrors the infringement fee based on…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 3, 2026, Order concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection (R. 192 RoP), UPC_CoA_113/2026
An order to preserve evidence pursuant to Art. 60 UPCA also allows for the seizure of promotional and commercial documents (potentially) proving infringing activities and is not limited to documents concerning the technical details of the product or process in question. : headnote 1: “The scope of application of Art. 60 UPCA is not limited…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 28, 2026, Decision UPC_CoA_678/2025
Admissibility of patent amendments (R. 30.1 RoP): Review is limited to whether the patentee filed an explanation on Art. 84 and 123(2),(3) EPC compliance — not whether that explanation is convincing. Convincingness is a merits question, decided at the validity stage. Claim construction after amendment: The unamended parts of the description remain a valid explanatory aid for interpreting…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, September 3, 2026, procedural order on time limits after stay of proceedings is lifted, UPC_CFI_871/2026
Rule 296.3 RoP is to be understood to mean that, after stayed proceedings are resumed, the applicable time limits continue to run from the date of the order resuming the proceedings, taking into account the time limits that had already expired prior to the stay of the proceedings.: Rule 296.3 RoP reads as follows: “While…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 2, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_297/2025, UPC_CFI_651/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld the patent-in-suit, which relates to “SHARING MULTIMEDIA CONTENT IN A PEER-TO-PEER CONFIGURATION”, and found that the patent in its upheld version was indirectly infringed by the Disney+ streaming service. The decision focusses on claim construction, validity and some procedural aspects, applying the UPC’s established case law, for example regarding…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 31, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_312/2025
Suspensive effect is the exception, not the rule for applications for rehearing (Art. 81(2) UPCA, R. 252 RoP). : The filing of an application for rehearing against a final decision of the Court of Appeal does not automatically suspend its enforceability. Suspensive effect requires a positive, separate decision of the Court and constitutes a departure…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, UPC 523/2025, Revocation action, issued on September 2, 2026
Lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) and Art. 60(1) EPC requires showing that the proprietor has no rights to the patent.: The requirement in Art. 138(1)(e) EPC that a European patent may be revoked if the proprietor is not entitled under Art. 60(1) EPC should be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor does not have…
2 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025
Rule 116.3 RoP governs the consequences of a party’s non-attendance at the oral hearing, treating them as relying on their written submissions.: If a defendant fails to attend the oral hearing despite being properly summoned, the court may proceed to issue a final decision on the merits rather than a default judgment under Rule 116.5…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.