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 Milan, June 8, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2046/2025
.aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }Deemed service on a non-responsive foreign defendant: a registered letter is deemed served ten days after posting, regardless of whether it is collected (R. 271.6(b), R. 276.1 RoP).: Where postal service attempts are returned as “Unclaimed”, the passive or disinterested conduct of a defendant cannot obstruct the continuation of…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 2, 2026, appeal judgment in infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CoA_312/2025 et al
On international jurisdiction: The CoA confirms long-arm jurisdiction for European patents in accordance with the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22), i.e. where the Defendant is domiciled in a UPC contracting member state (headnotes 5-8). In this course, the CoA clarifies that the UPC cannot decline jurisdiction in such case, confirming the CJEU’s decision…
13 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Lisbon, May 26, 2026, Order on applications under R. 360 and 361 RoP, UPC_CFI_850/2026
R. 360 RoP requires that an event occured after the action was filed, rendering the action inadmissible or unfounded – this requirement is not fulfilled if the Defendant relies on an own earlier action requesting the Court to adjudicate FRAND-compliant terms for a cross-license agreement potentially concerning the patent-in-suit.: [6] Pursuant to R. 360 RoP,…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, May 29, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_130/2025
Preservation of evidence: alignment between Claimant’s representatives and the expert before seizure does not affect impartiality: One defendant requested that an expert report submitted to the Judge Rapporteur at the end of seizure measures and the inspection of the defendant’s premises be declared null and void. They argued that there had been a preparatory meeting…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CoA_48/2026
The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_998/2026 et al
When assessing the requirement for a procedural security, namely the question whether the Claimant has “sufficient means” to compensate the Defendant for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings, only the financial situation of the Claimant should be taken into consideration, but not the financial situation of the holding company behind the Claimant.: 7. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 22, 2026, order concerning an application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_61/2026
Signing and lodging documents pursuant to R. 4.1 RoP: The procedural document itself must bear an electronic signature. It is not sufficient to simply “sign submission” in the CMS after the upload of a submission. This is necessary to guarantee the authenticity of a procedural document and to exclude the risk that it is not…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 27, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CoA_622/2025
Further substantiation of already conclusive first-instance submissions is not “new” on appeal: The appellant argued at first instance that circulation pumps are typically implemented as centrifugal pumps. On appeal, additional textbook excerpts were submitted to substantiate this point. The Court held this as concretization of already conclusive submissions. In addition, this submission was not contested…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 26, 2026, order to produce evidence, UPC_CoA_76/2026
Irreversible foreign regulatory consequences can justify suspensive effect: The defendants argued two-fold circumstances: (i) complying with the production order may violate Chinese export control regulations, while (ii) non-compliance with the production order would trigger penalties. The Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, these consequences and extended the time limit to comply with the production…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024
Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025
The four-step equivalence test applied by LD The Hague forms a coherent whole suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalence.: 1.Technical equivalence Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context? 2. Fair protection for the patentee Is extending the protection of…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 26, 2026, security for costs, UPC_CoA_74/2026
discretionary review requires the impugned order to be manifestly erroneous : The claimant presented a number of reasons why, in its view, the impugned order is incorrect, including new arguments not raised at first instance. It failed, however, to demonstrate or even argue that the alleged errors are manifest. facts and arguments not raised cannot…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 22, 2026, judgement by default, UPC_CoA_21/2026
For the purposes of R. 355.2 RoP the appellant is regarded as the claimant in the appeal proceedings: A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 15, 2026, order on request for use of English at oral hearing, UPC-CoA-50/2026
The Court of Appeal may authorize oral hearings in a language other than the language of proceedings, without formally changing the language of the case, based on considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency: The appellants’ representative understood French but lacked sufficient oral proficiency for optimal representation. The Court permitted both parties to plead in English…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, May 20, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_553/2025
An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP.: In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the obligation to refrain from an act which has created a continuing disturbance must generally be interpreted as encompassing…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 19, 2026, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI-2228/2025, UPC_CFI-1546/2026
Assuming jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Regulation requires a sufficient connection between the defendant and the court seised: The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR).…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, May 19, 2026, order on request for a discretionary review, UPC-CoA-67/2026
Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP: When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.