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 Milan, July 21, 2026, interim conference, UPC_CFI_703/2025 and UPC_CFI_1757_2025
Physical inspections and judicial weighing experiments may be ordered under Rules 170.2(f), 170.2(g), and 201 RoP if necessary and proportionate to establish infringement: The claimant’s request to weigh the seized vehicle was justified to prove infringement. The court noted that practical difficulties and costs do not negate the necessity of the experiment. (Sec. 10 et…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, Decision on infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025
FRAND behaviour: consent to amend NDA required: If an NDA between the parties prevents one party from making submissions or producing documents, and the other party, without reasonable justification, refuses to amend the NDA to enable such production, this shall be to the detriment of the latter party (headnote 1, Sec. 352 et seqq.).In such…
7 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Düsseldorf Local Division, July 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_209/2026
If a statement of claim is to be served under The Hague Convention and, according to the competent Chinese authority, the defendant “refuses to accept the documents,” the Court may deem the steps taken so far to be sufficient for good service: The Court attempted to serve the SoC on Defendants domiciled in China pursuant…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 22, 2026, Order – Admissibility of New Auxiliary Requests on Appeal Not Determined in Advance, UPC-CoA-63/2026 & UPC-CoA-64/2026
Admissibility of new auxiliary requests is not necessarily determined upfront: The Court did not rule on the admissibility of new auxiliary requests filed with the Statement of grounds of appeal in a separate, preliminary ruling. It found that the assessment of admissibility of those requests required consideration of the procedural history of the case and…
2 min Reading time→ -
Central Division Munich, July 21, 2026, Decision – Device Claim Defined by Structure Lacks Novelty Regardless of Function; No Obvious Typographical Error in Prior Art Where the Term Used Is Technically Plausible; UPC_CFI_714/2025
A device claim is assessed on structure, not function: A device claim defined exclusively by structural features is not, as a rule, limited to the device performing any particular function. If prior art discloses a device fulfilling all structural features of the claim and that device is suitable for the claimed purpose, the invention is…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 20, 2026, Order – Modification of Security for Costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_530/2025
Modification of security requires genuinely new and unforeseeable developments: R. 158 RoP allows security for costs to be modified “at any time” but only where new circumstances have arisen that were neither present nor foreseeable when the original order was made. Common litigation developments – such as a counterclaim for revocation or a responsive patent…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 10, 2026, Order – Alignment of Defence Deadlines for Co-Defendants Where Service Abroad Is Pending, UPC CFI 1902/2025
The claimant filed an infringement action against two co-defendants before the Milan Local Division. One defendant (based in China) had already been served and was facing an imminent deadline to file its statement of defence. The other defendant (based in Hong Kong) had not yet been served – with no certainty as to when service…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 10, 2026, decision by default, UPC_CFI_766/2024
Deliberate copying combined with continued infringement despite a provisional injunction establishes the infringer’s knowledge, triggering the stricter damages standard of Art. 68 (1) UPCA: Where a defendant knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engages in infringing activity, the Court must order damages appropriate to the harm actually suffered (Art. 68 (1) UPCA), rather than…
6 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 16, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-42/2026
A former employee may join a confidentiality club on the condition of signing a separate, penalized confidentiality agreement with the party they previously worked for: The respondent argued that their former employee had already been part of the Confidentiality Club established in the first instance. He or she should now also be part of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order concerning an appeal in a revocation action, UPC-CoA-861/2025
A claimant must bear costs if itunnecessarily initiates a revocation action against a defendant who has not given cause and surrenders the patent immediately at the beginning of the proceedings (Art. 69 (1), (2) UPCA): The CoA held that the principles of equity required that the prevailing claimant had to bear the costs even if…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-94/2026
An application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn pursuant to R. 265.1 RoP, applied mutatis mutandis, if no final decision has been issued and the opposing party consents, thereby demonstrating that the opposing party has no interest in a decision being made: The CFI found the patent-in-suit to be infringend and dismissed the Counterclaim for…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 17, 2026, UPC_CoA_360/2025, Decision
The right to a court fee refund upon withdrawal is governed by the rules in force on the date of the withdrawal request, not the filing date of the action (R. 370.9 RoP): The Court held that the triggering event for a refund claim is the withdrawal itself. Therefore, amendments to R. 370.9 RoP apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 14 July 2026, Order, UPC-CoA-76/2026
Suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP may be partially granted on a prima facie basis where thrid-country export controls impede immediate compliance: The Court of Appeal accepted, on a prima facie basis, that: (i) Chinese export-control law applied to the materials; (ii) required administrative procedures were incompatible with the fixed deadline; and (iii) non-compliance could…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 15 July 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_68/2026 – UPC_CoA_72/2026
Court Fees of an Appeal shall be paid in accordance with CFI’s Value of the Action : As a general principle, fees shall be paid in accordance with the value of the action as determined by the Court of First Instance. The parties are not entitled to unilaterally determine or amend the value of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal – Clarification on a conditional counterclaim for revocation – UPC-CoA-40/2026, 16 July 2026, Emboline, Inc. v. AorticLab, srl
Headnotes: Limiting a counterclaim for revocation by making it conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible. There is a need for clarification on such a conditional counterclaim if and when the infringement claimant appeals from a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance. In the event of an appeal by the infringement…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 13, 2026, UPC_CoA_79/2026
Withdrawal before service on respondents is admissible; respondents need not be heard under R. 265.1 RoP if they have no legitimate interest in continuation.: Since the statement of appeal was still undergoing formal examination under R. 229 RoP and had not yet been served on the respondents, the respondents had no legitimate interest in having…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.