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 Paris, August 19, 2026, Infringement action with conditional counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_301/2025 and UPC_CFI_713/2025
Making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible under Art. 33(3) UPCA and promotes procedural economy.: Where the defendant requests, and the claimant does not object, that the counterclaim be decided only if infringement is found, the court may examine infringement first and defer the validity analysis to a later…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, August 17, 2026, appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties, UPC_CoA_87/2026
A defendant addressed by an injunction must control third parties and platforms used to market the attacked product, to ensure compliance with the order (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP).: Where a defendant assigns tasks to third parties to fulfil an injunction, or provides content to a third-party marketing platform, it remains responsible for ensuring…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025
Jurisdiction does not depend on whether the UPCA governs the merits: Knaus Tabbert argued the UPC had no power to decide on acts before 1 June 2023. It pointed to an old opt-out that had been withdrawn, and to caravan sales that spanned both sides of that date. The Court disagreed. The Court must be…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, order of August 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1321/2026
Asserting claims in a form narrower than the granted (independent) claims in proceedings for provisional measures is admissible: Relying on a claim combination narrower than any of the granted claims does not, in principle, preclude the ordering of provisional measures (cf. headnote 1). Auxiliary requests in proceedings for provisional measures may be inadmissible if features hail…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, August 10, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_251/2025, UPC_CFI_769/2025
Interim conference reduced the number of auxiliary requests and prior art documents: Following the order issued after the interim conference, Maxell reduced the number of auxiliary requests from 44 to 10. Samsung, which had originally cited 24 documents against the main request and the auxiliary requests, correspondingly reduced its attacks against the main request to…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 11, 2026, Order on Change of Language of Proceedings, UPC_CFI_2082/2026
A claimant’s demonstrated capacity to litigate in English in comparable proceedings may outweigh party size and domicile in a change-of-language decision under Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP (cf. headnote, mn. 21).: Under the CoA case law (Order of 17 April 2024, UPC_CoA_101/2024, para. 22-25 and Order of 18 September 2024, UPC_CoA_354/2024, para. 26-27), changing…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, order on request for file inspection, UPC_CFI_7/2023
Once the Court has issued a final decision or order concluding first-instance proceedings, the public generally has an interest in accessing the pleadings and evidence: Access to the pleadings and evidence fosters a better understanding of the decision in light of the parties’ arguments and the evidence relied upon, and enables judicial scrutiny, which is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 04, 2026, Confirmation by the Court of a settlement, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
A confirmation by the Court of a settlement can be enforced as a decision of the Court.: This follows from R. 365(1)S.1 RoP. Where applicable, the settlement agreement will be entered in the Register in redacted form only. Division LD Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_1536/2026 Type of proceedings Confirmation by the Court of a settlement Parties…
1 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 3, 2026, order concerning penalty orders, UPC-CoA-28/2026
If the Court of Appeal revokes a first-instance decision in merits proceedings in which orders were granted under recurring penalty payments, the revocation has retroactive effect and the order must be regarded as never having had any legal effect. : The revocation of an order of the Court of First Instance granting a permanent injunction…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 30, 2026, order concerning a preliminary objection, UPC-CFI-1901/2026
Re lis pendens (Art. 29 Brussels I recast): – Here, the UPC was not “the court first seized” based on the date on which the application for provisional measures was filed before the UPC.– The earlier application for provisional measures before the UPC and the later filed national French action for revocation of the SPC,…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, August 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_121/2026
Suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223.2 RoP is granted only exceptionally, where the applicant proves its interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest.: Relying on its own case law, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an exception may apply if the impugned…
2 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Munich, July 29, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_515/2026, UPC_CFI_1797/2026
An “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP need not be the complete original file. An excerpt reproducing the protected information can suffice.: The decisive criterion is whether the submitted document reveals the specific information or evidence for which restriction is sought under R. 262A.1 RoP, not whether it is technically unprocessed or complete. R. 262A.3…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, August 5, 2026, order on an application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_118/2026, UPC_CoA_119/2026, UPC_CoA_120/2026
Admissibility of appeals requires that the appellant is adversely affected by the first-instance decision under Art. 73(2) UPCA and R. 220.1 and 220.2 RoP.: An appeal by the claimant is inadmissible if the first-instance order did not rule on the admissibility of the counterclaim against the claimant, but only against the intervener. The claimant is…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 6, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_1569/2025
A request to raise or lower the ceiling for recoverable costs must be clear and explicit.: A request to adjust the cost ceiling (Article 2(4) of the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023 on the scale of recoverable costs ceilings) is only deemed to have been made if it is clear and…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 18, 2026, time extension request, UPC_CFI_1963/2025, UPC_CFI_1247/2026
The burden of diligence to obtain access to a non-confidential version of a brief lies with the party seeking it: Where an unredacted version of a brief (marked highly confidential “HC” in the CMS, only accessible to the court) is filed simultaneously with a redacted version (marked mutual “M” in the CMS, accessible to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 27, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
An applicant’s predominantly personal interest in access to the register may result in strict confidentiality obligations under Rule 262.2 RoP: When deciding on a confidentiality request under Rule 262.2 RoP, the Court may take into account that the applicant has a predominantly personal interest in accessing the register. As a result, the Court may apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 28, 2026, request to change the language of the proceedings, UPC_CFI_1146/2026
The request to change the language of proceedings may be lodged prior to the statement of defense : Art. 49 (5) does not require the application for a language change to be included in the statement of defence. R. 323.3 must accordingly be interpreted in such a manner that it does not preclude the lodging…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.