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 10, 2026, Order, Retroactive Time Extension under R. 9.3(a) RoP – UPC_CoA_37/2026
R. 9.3(a) RoP, not R. 320 RoP, governs deadline extensions for written submissions in ongoing proceedings: R. 320 RoP applies only where missing a time limit causes a party to lose a substantive right or means of redress, such as the right to initiate appeal proceedings or to challenge default judgments. Failure to meet a…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025 – Provisional Measures for Hair Care Appliance Attachment Patent
Claim construction must balance function and structure: interpreting structural claim features solely by their function is insufficient; the physical and spatial configuration taught by the patent must equally be considered (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on Interpretation).: In the specific case the Court of Appeal held that an “overlap” in the patent claim must be geometrically…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD The Hague, Infringement Action, February 24, 2026, UPC_CFI_619/2025
Broad injunctive relief covers future product variants without claim amendment (R. 263 RoP): Following the CoA’s Abbott/Sibio ruling (UPC_CoA_328/2024), a claimant requesting general injunctive relief covering patent claims can capture future product variants without amending its claim, provided the prayer for relief is drafted broadly enough, e.g., including “further versions or variants thereof.” Amendment to…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 26, 2026, request for discretionary review, UPC_CoA_34/2026
A penalty order under R. 354.4 RoP is appealable only via the leave-to-appeal mechanism: The appellant argued that the CFI’s reference to R. 354.4 RoP in the impugned order created the impression that leave to appeal had already been granted, analogous to Total v. Texas Instruments (CoA_651/2024). The Court of Appeal rejected this, holding that…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 27, 2026, request for further exchanges of written pleadings, UPC_CoA_884/2025
Requests, facts and evidence from first instance automatically form part of appeal proceedings (R. 222.1 and R. 222.2 RoP): The appellant argued it needed an additional round of written pleadings to respond to six auxiliary requests raised by the respondent in its Statement of Response. The judge-rapporteur rejected this application, finding no justification for reopening…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 3, 2026, order on a R.265 RoP application and determination of value in dispute, UPC_CoA_887/2025
A claimant can withdraw an action for provisional measures even during a pending appeal, with the defendant’s consent, closing proceedings at both instances (R. 265.1, R. 265.2 RoP).: The Court permitted the withdrawal requested by the claimant and consented to by the defendant, as no final decision had been made. Upon withdrawal of an action,…
4 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.