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, March 24, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_935/2025
The priciple of front loaded prodeedings also applies to applications for suspensive effect according to R. 223 RoP: An application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence, and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. The Court of Appeal held that the obligation to present one’s full case as early…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1049/2025
The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025): According to Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025, the revised rules re. the Table of Court…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_519/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2025
Advertising materials are not covered by Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and therefore cannot be ordered destroyed: The Court granted destruction of infringing products, but expressly excluded advertising materials. It held that Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA covers products and the materials and equipment relevant to their production, not mere promotional materials depicting the products. The Court also refused…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 18, 2026, Order concerning an appeal against an order denying a request under R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_930/2025
Information disclosed to the other party without a confidentiality restriction will generally lose protection as a trade secret or other confidential information: The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated without restriction. Where information has been…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning review of an ex parte order for inspection, UPC_CoA_3/2026
In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it: The Court of Appeal emphasizes that, in ex parte proceedings, the applicant’s duty is not limited to presenting the facts supporting the requested inspection. Under R. 192.3 RoP, the applicant must also…
3 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_135/2024, UPC_CFI_477/2024
In the FRAND context, a dominant position may exist where consumers expect standard-compliant smart TVs to decode all video codecs covered by the standard: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard cannot realistically be marketed without…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.