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 The Hague, February 25, 2026, UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025
A number of 42 auxiliary requests (ARs) in response to e Counterclaim for Revocation may be deemed unreasonable; the court can order the patentee to provide a structured tabular overview for procedural efficiency (Rule 30 RoP).: The court clarified that any further combinations of ARs not included in the claimant’s initial application to amend would…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_678/2025
The written procedure on appeal is limited; there is no automatic right to reply to the Statement of Response (Part 4 RoP, R. 237, R. 238 RoP): Under Part 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the appellant may file a Statement of Grounds of Appeal and the respondent a Statement of Response. No further written…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD The Hague, March 3, 2026, infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_43/2025, UPC_CFI_103/2025
Jurisdiction is affirmed if no preliminary objection is filed (Rule 19.7 RoP).: The defendants, including a US-based defendant, did not file a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP and were therefore deemed to have submitted to the UPC’s jurisdiction. Claim construction (Art. 69 EPC) takes into account function; optional embodiments in the description do not…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Referral to CJEU, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025
UPC refers to CJEU for guidance on whether jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant can be based on a UPC-domiciled co-defendant for acts in a non-UPC Member State (Art. 8(1) in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) Reg. 1215/2012).: The CoA questions if an alleged direct infringer and an alleged intermediary are in the “same situation of fact…
6 min Reading time→ -
Central Division (Munich), February 24, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_829/2024
Patentees must draft precise numerical ranges in composition claims; unclear bases risk added matter (Art. 65(1),(2) UPCA; Art. 138(1)(c) EPC).: The Court construed the coposition as claimed in claim 1 of the Patent as comprising a range of marker molecule calculated in respect of the total sugar composition, while the application disclosed that the amounts…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025
Functional claim construction; disregarding additional features: The patent is related to an optical device having a specific arrangement of a single input fiber for lighting. The accused embodiment comprises multiple input fibres, but only one of them is used for coupling input laser light; the other fibres are used for other functionalities that do not…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026, Decision concerning public access to the register, UPC_CoA_9/2026, UPC_CoA_10/2026
Reasoned requests regarding access to documents (R. 262.1(b) RoP) shall be made to the relevant division + separate responsibility of Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal: This ensures that the decision will be taken by the judge-rapporteur, who is familiar with the case file. Headnotes: Reasoned requests to the Registry for written pleadings…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 24 February 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_609/2025
Representation by attorney at law or patent attorney (Art. 48, 58 UPCA): A party can choose freely between being represented by an attorney at law, a patent attorney or a team of both. There is no obligation to consider the nature of the case. This is also reflected in the headnotes: 1) It follows from…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_344/2025; UPC_CFI_735/2025; PR-UPC-CFI-0000639/2026
One fee for a joint counterclaim in a single action (R. 370.7 RoP): When multiple defendants file a single counterclaim for revocation in the same action only one one value-based fee applies. Separate, later counterclaim requires its own fee (R. 370.7 RoP; Art. 70 UPCA): A defendant served later who files its own counterclaim –…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025
Rehearing is an exceptional remedy; only fundamental, outcome‑determinative procedural defects justify reopening final appeal decisions (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247 RoP): The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 12, 2026, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_723/2025
Non-infringement arguments which are for the first time submitted with the Rejoinder can be rejected as late-field: If a defendant has not (timely) contested that the challenged embodiments infringe the patent in suit and if the court follows the claim interpretation of claimant, infringement will be assumed for the purposes of the proceedings for provisional…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024
If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025
Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, February 10, 2026, cost decision, UPC_CFI_1738/2025
An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs: The Court rejected the Applicants’ argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an “arbitrary limitation”. It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025
According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-937/2025
A stay of UPC proceedings pending a parallel EPO opposition is discretionary, even if a rapid decision of the EPO is expected: Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.