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, August 21, 2026, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC-CoA-61/2026
Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA): In the dispute concerning preliminary measures, two patents were at issue originally, EP201 and EP198. However, the applicant withdrew its request based on EP201…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on Application for Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_135/2026
Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error”: The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art.…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order on the Admissibility of the Appeal, UPC-COA-0894/2025
Logging into the CMS via secure two-factor authentication is insufficient to make effective submissions: under Rule 4.1 RoP all pleadings must be signed with a certified electronic signature: The Court of Appeal confirmed that secure authentication to log into the CMS only verifies the user’s identity for system access. It does not replace the mandatory…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 27, 2026, Order to Produce Evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026
R. 190 RoP does not permit fishing expeditions: The purpose of R. 190 RoP is to enable access to specified evidence that is not readily accessible to the party bearing the burden of proof. An order under R. 190 RoP requires reasonably available evidence supporting the plausibility of the claim and is subject to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 24, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action with Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_495/2025 and UPC_CFI_494/2025
A SEP holder is only required to offer a single FRAND-compliant licensing route: pool or bilateral (hn. 1): Competition law does not require a patent holder to offer both a pool licence and a bilateral licence; indicating one route that meets FRAND requirements is sufficient, aligning with prior LD Munich case law (Huawei v Netgear).…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC_CFI_1535/2026
For the assessment of urgency it is relevant when the applicant was able to physically obtain and examine the potentially infringing product: Information obtained earlier is only relevant if such information (e.g. drawings) allow applicant to determine with sufficient certainty whether the potentially infringing product is infringing the patent in suit. The applicant of preliminary…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 25, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_56/2025, UPC_CFI_864/2025
Direct infringement of a product claim turns on objective capability, not the manufacturer’s intended or recommended use: For direct infringement of a product claim under Art. 25(a) UPCA, the decisive factor is whether the accused embodiment is, due to its nature and suitability for use, objectively capable of fulfilling the claim features; regardless of the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 21, 2026, Order on the Release of Information in Inspection and Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
Scope of disclosure in the inspection and preservation proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA): A three-step test governs the scope of disclosure of a detailed description to an applicant in inspection and preservation proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA) – Continuing of earlier LD Düsseldorf decision (UPC_CFI_539/2024, November 19, 2025, headnotes 1–3 – Bekaert v. Siltronic). First, it must…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, August 17, 2026, Order on Admission of Auxiliary Request, UPC_CFI_806/2025, UPC_CFI_185/2026
An amendment to a party’s case cannot be allowed if it could have been foreseen from the outset of the proceedings (R. 263 RoP, R. 30.2 RoP): Granting leave to amend at a late stage would allow the applicant to change its litigation strategy after the fact. A diligent patentee should coordinate its EPO and…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 19, 2026, Decision, UPC-CoA-908/2025, UPC-CoA-909/2025, UPC-CoA-918/2025
New legal arguments raised on appeal are admissible under R. 222.2 RoP if grounded in facts already submitted before the Court of First Instance: R. 222.2 RoP only allows the Court of Appeal to disregard new facts and evidence, not new legal arguments. Since claim construction is a question of law, the appellant could challenge the first…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 17, 2026, Decision on Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation and Cost Allocation, UPC_CFI_492/2025, UPC_CFI_1309/2025
It is permissible to make a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement of the patent: The court relied on the Court of Appeal’s Clarification order of 16 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_40/2026, Emboline v. AorticLab), confirming that the procedural approach of making the decision on the revocation counterclaim dependent on an infringement finding is…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 17, 2026, Order on Permissibility and Appeal of Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation, UPC-CoA-40/2026, UPC-CoA-123/2026
Infringement actions and revocation counterclaims are separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA, making a conditional counterclaim an “inter-procedural” condition that determines whether a separate appeal or a cross-appeal must be lodged: Since the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are adjudicated in separate proceedings, a condition linking the counterclaim to the outcome of the…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, August 19, 2026, central revocation action, UPC_CFI_860/2025
Legal persons are, as a rule, always “concerned” within the meaning of Art. 47.6 UPCA when bringing a revocation action.: The concept of being concerned by a patent, as laid down in Article 47(6) UPCA for revocation actions, is to be interpreted broadly. A distinction must be drawn between private and commercial acts, as Article…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 13, 2026, Central Revocation Action, UPC_CoA_884/2025 (appeal from UPC_CFI_231/2024)
Added matter: Omitting a feature disclosed together with claimed features constitutes added matter only where an extricable functional or structural link exists between the omitted and claimed features (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC, Art. 65(2) UPCA).: One situation where added matter may arise is when claimed subject-matter is obtained by importing one or more features from a…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, August 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
A request for further pleadings must be explicit — hints inside a pleading are not enough: LABS answered the Defendants’ new arguments directly inside its Rejoinder, without filing a formal request at that point. The Court said this does not count. R. 36 RoP needs a clear, stand-alone request. There is no such thing as…
7 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, 17 August 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_69/2026, UPC_CoA_71/2026, UPC_CoA_72/2026
A ruling on evidence production keeps its own 15-day appeal clock, even when buried inside the main decision: The Munich Local Division rejected NST’s request for Qualcomm’s source code inside the same document as its ruling on infringement. It never mentioned this rejection in the operative part. The Court of Appeal said this does not…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026
An “attorneys’ eyes only” regime needs the consent of the party losing access rights (R. 262A.6 RoP): A confidentiality order must give at least one natural person per party access, plus their legal representatives. The Court can only exclude all natural persons of a party if that party agrees. A simple objection kills the request.…
7 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.