Home » UPC decisions » Page 5

UPC Decisions

  • Court of Appeal, June 20, 2025, order concerning security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CoA_393/2025

    Security for costs can only be requested by defendants, not claimants, in infringement or revocation actions: According to Art 69 (4) UPC Agreement (UPCA), at the request of the defendant, the court may order the claimant to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant which the claimant may…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Düsseldorf, June 16, 2025, decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_140/2024

    Reference to dependent claims by the parties for the first time in the oral proceedings for the interpretation of the independent claims may not be late.: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. The Court must independently construe the claims. The first reference to (further) subclaims at the oral hearing may…

    3 min Reading time
    →
  • Contact us personally!

    Contact us personally!

    Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.

    Make an inquiry now

  • CoA Luxembourg, June 19, 2025, application for rehearing, UPC_CoA_402/2024, UPC_CoA_405/2024

    The circumstances on which the application for rehearing is based must not already have been know during the first instance or appeal proceedings.: Art. 81(1) UPCA offers the possibility to request a rehearing after a final decision when, it is based on an act which has been held to constitute a criminal offence or in…

    7 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, June 6, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_618/2024

    Deadline for filing an application for a cost decision in proceedings re provisional measures : If the successful party wishes to obtain a decision on costs, it must submit an application for the determination of costs within one month of service of the decision. The one-month period for filing an application for the determination of…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_745/2024

    Broad interpretation of motion for damages: A broadly phrased motion for damages can include damages from ancillary transactions, even if not explicitly stated. The court interpreted the Claimant’s initial motion for “all damages” to include profits from sales of sealing materials and service contracts connected to the allegedly infringing machines, based on the Claimant’s arguments…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_745/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_200/2025)

    No special treatment for amendments in counterclaims for revocation: The Rules of Procedure on amendments apply equally to counterclaims for revocation as to infringement actions; no leniency is afforded to counterclaimants. All grounds for revocation and supporting documents must be included with the initial counterclaim. Late-filed prior art faces strict scrutiny: New prior art can…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, June 6, 2025, decision, UPC_CFI_324/2024, UPC_CFI_487/2024

    Burden of proof for non-infringement: If the defendant claims that infringement is impossible due to factors outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendant must prove this. The claimant does not need to address such external factors. In the decision, the defendant unsuccessfully argued that infringement was impossible due to the design of existing…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • CD Paris, June 9, 2025, order on file inspection, UPC_CFI_309/2023

    Access to pleadings and evidence – balancing public access and confidentiality: The order follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore (10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, para 43), namely that in a decision on a request under R. 262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of obtaining the…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, June 6, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CoA_434/2025

    Requirements for suspensive effect of an appeal: An appeal shall only be granted suspensive effect if the circumstances of the case justify an exception. This may be the case for orders of communication of information according to Art. 67 UPCA. However, the risk of irreparable harm, if the suspensive effect is not granted, has to…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023

    No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, May 30, 2025, Orders, UPC_CoA_845/2024, UPC_CoA_50/2025

    Appeals and cross-appeals are broadly admissible, but the Court will not worsen the position of the appealing party (reformatio in peius) (Art. 73(2) UPCA, R. 220.1, R. 226(b) RoP).: The Court apportions costs based on the degree of success, considering equity and the reasonableness of the parties’ positions. Orders to communicate information must specify a…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_156/2025

    UPC competence is not temporally limited (Art. 32(1) UPCA).: The Court’s jurisdiction extends to acts of infringement before the UPCA’s entry into force, provided the patent is within the UPC’s competence at the time of action. The absence of a temporal limitation in Art. 32(1) UPCA aligns with the UPCA’s objective to unify patent litigation…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • Milan Local Division, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_181/2025

    Joint request for stay of proceedings removes court discretion (Rule 295(d) RoP, Art. 43, 76(1) UPCA): When all parties jointly request a stay, the court must grant it, regardless of the permissive wording in the rule. This upholds party autonomy in determining the subject matter and conduct of their case. Partial stays are permitted for…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Mannheim, June 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_365/2023

    Pre-emptive enforcement warning rejected: Applications for advance warnings of penalties for non-compliance are likely to be rejected if the court has already exercised discretion on enforcement. The claimant’s request for a warning of daily penalties was denied, as the court had already decided not to set such terms in the main proceedings. Time period for…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Munich, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_63/2025

    Ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders may be granted if the applicant provides sufficient evidence of likely infringement (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 197.3 RoP).: The court will grant such orders without hearing the defendant if the applicant submits all reasonably available evidence supporting a likelihood of patent infringement or threat thereof. The review…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, May 23, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_7/2025

    Withdrawal of appeal permitted where both parties consent and no legitimate interest remains (Rule 265.1 RoP).: The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant to withdraw the appeal after the respondent consented, as neither party had a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings. 40% reimbursement of court fees granted for withdrawal before closure of interim procedure…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • CD Paris, May 28, 2025, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_198/2024

    Revocation of European patents can be limited to specific UPC Member States upon request (Art. 34, 76(1) UPCA; Rule 44(d) RoP): The Court confirmed it may revoke a European (bundle) patent only for the national part(s) specified by the claimant, not necessarily for all UPC Member States. This approach respects the adversarial nature of proceedings…

    4 min Reading time
    →

    Stay in the loop

    Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

    * = Required field