Home » UPC decisions » Page 6

UPC Decisions

  • ,

    LD Paris, April 10, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_301/2025

    The RoP lack specific pleading rules for a FRAND defence.: Unlike in case of a counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 et seq. RoP) or an application to amend the patent (R. 30 et seq. RoP), where the number and content of the pleadings are precisely set out, the Rules of Procedure do not contain respective…

    3 min Reading time
    →
  • ,

    LD Brussels, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025; UPC_CFI_629/2025

    Evidence production applications (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP) require four cumulative conditions: reasonably available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.: The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. This condition is assessed on a prima facie basis and is twofold, considering(a) whether the requesting party presented…

    4 min Reading time
    →
  • Contact us personally!

    Contact us personally!

    Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.

    Make an inquiry now
  • ,

    LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025

    Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).: The Court reasoned that the reversal of the main decision removes the legal basis for the initial cost order, making previously paid amounts recoverable in the subsequent cost proceedings.…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, April 14, 2026, Order on suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_48/2026

    The Court of Appeal can grant suspensive effect to an order pursuant to R. 220.2 RoP as Art. 74 UPCA prevails over R. 223.5 RoP.: The Court confirmed its established case law that in case of a conflict between the UPCA and Rules of Procedure , the UPCA prevails (R. 1.1 RoP), allowing it to…

    4 min Reading time
    →
  • ,

    LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025

    The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over non-EU/UPC defendants when alleged infringing acts occur exclusively in a third country, as there is no connection to the UPC territory.: Based on Art. 4, 7(2), and 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it was not “appropriate” under Art. 71b(2) to extend jurisdiction, as the…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Paris, April 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1594/2025

    Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).: The lack of novelty need not stem solely from what is explicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed in a prior art document. It may also arise from what is necessarily implied,…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • CD Milan, April 10, 2026, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_480/2025

    If any legitimate mapping of prior art onto claim features destroys novelty, the patent must be revoked (Art. 54 EPC).: When assessing novelty, the Court will examine the disclosure of the prior art document overall and will compare this disclosure to the scope of the patent-in-suit. If one way of “mapping” leads to the assessment…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Hamburg, April 7, 2026, final order, UPC_CFI_2255/2025

    Universal jurisdiction doctrine consolidated: The panel — departing from its own earlier position in Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025) and following the Court of Appeal’s ruling (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) — held that the UPC is a court of a member state within the meaning of Art. 71a BR. Its territory encompasses all Contracting Member States. Consequently, the UPC possesses universal jurisdiction…

    4 min Reading time
    →
  • ,

    CD Munich, April 8, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_280/2025

    A realistic starting point in the same technical field does not automatically render the claimed invention obvious (Art. 56 EPC, Art. 65(1)–(2) UPCA).: Even if prior art qualifies as a realistic starting point, it remains relevant for the inventive step assessment that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, April 7, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_21/2026

    Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA can only be ordered against the applicant who is initiating proceedings. Never in the applicant’s favour.: An “applicant” is defined as the person who initiates legal proceedings by filing an application. This one-directional mechanism ensures that the party brought involuntarily into proceedings is protected against unrecoverable costs. At…

    5 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_12/2026

    A party or its representative may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing, based on an audio recording pursuant to R. 115 RoP. When producing a private transcript, a party or its representative may obtain support of an assistant or support staff, such as a stenographer, working in the presence and under the supervision…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_302/2025, CoA_305/2025

    Cost determination proceedings must always be initiated at the Court of First Instance, regardless of whether costs arise from first instance or appeal (R. 150 et seq. RoP): The cost determination procedure under Rules 150 et seq. RoP is a separate proceeding that must be filed with the Court of First Instance. The RoP does…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CoA_409/2025, UPC_CoA_410/2025, UPC_CoA_420/2025

    Logging into the UPC’s Case Management System does not constitute an “entering of an appearance” to establish jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation.: The mere access to the file, before any active step or defense, is however not sufficient to establish a deliberate choice regarding the jurisdiction of the UPC. Another step is required in…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, March 30, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_899/2025

    Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).: By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Defendant in first instance has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and…

    4 min Reading time
    →

  • LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026

    A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP. : Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the defendants’ request for alignment of the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is…

    2 min Reading time
    →

  • CD Paris, March 30, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_258/2025

    The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features.: Following the revocation of an independent claim, the patent proprietor may amend the patent to recast surviving dependent claims into independent form, provided the resulting configuration complies…

    3 min Reading time
    →

  • Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_898/2025

    Asserting a patent in a non-registered claim version is not categorically excluded in provisional measures proceedings; admissibility depends on the circumstances of each case (R. 211.2 RoP).: There is no automatic additional burden on the Appellee from assertion of a non-registered version. Whether the specific version is suitable for provisional measures is a case-by-case determination.…

    3 min Reading time
    →

    Stay in the loop

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

    * = Required field