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 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
CoA, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_808/2024
Reimbursement of fees: no extension of written procedure by opportunity for further written submissions.: In appeal proceedings (without cross-appeal), the written procedure ends with the submission of the statement of response by the respondent pursuant to R 235, R 239.1 RoP. The written procedure is not extended if the parties are allowed to file further…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_410/2023
No reimbursement of court fees after withdrawal on the eve of the pronouncement of the decision on the merrits.: Assuming an exceptional case pursuant to R 370.9 (e) RoP, the court denies the reimbursement of court fees. The court points out that at the time of withdrawal, the decision was fully drafted and signed and…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, May 23, 2025, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_163/2024
Assessment of original disclosure: The possibility of alternative options for relative positions of two elements of the claimed subject matter does not imply that a feature directed at one of the elements lacks support, as these alternatives are options, and are not inextricably connected with the arrangement of the feature as claimed (sec. 66). Provided…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 23, 2025, Order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI191/2025 and 192/2025
International jurisdiction by anchor defendant.: Pursuant to Art. 8(1) Brussels ibis Regulation (BR), a person domiciled in an EU Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled. In the present case, the judge rapporteur held it…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, May 21, 2025, order on application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_365/2025
Order of suspensive effect of an appeal requires exceptional circumstances: Pursuant to Article 74(1) UPCA, an appeal does not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise upon a reasoned request by a party. The Court of Appeal may therefore only grant such a request if the circumstances of the case justify an…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, May 21, 2025, order on application for cost security, UPC_CFI_758/2024
Requirements for requesting cost security based on undue burden of enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court may, upon a party’s request, order the opponent to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant, which the applicant may be liable…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, May 12, 2025, order on appeal against order for security of costs, especially when the action has become devoid of purpose, UPC_CoA_328/2024
Admissibility of Appeals: An appeal against an order for security of costs, brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures remains admissible, even if the request has become devoid of purpose (here because the appellant has later made it clear that it no longer requests provisional measures). The appellant retains a legal…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 13, 2025, decision on second medical use claims, UPC_CFI_505/2024 (sic!) [UPC_CFI_505/2023]
Requirements for the finding of infringement of second medical use claims: For a finding of infringement of second medical use claims, the claimant must show and prove (i) as an objective element, that there is either a prescription for use according to the patent, or at least additional circumstances showing that such use may be…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 14, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024
The Local Division in Duesseldorf opted for a joint hearing of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, prioritizing procedural efficiency and a unified interpretation of the patent (Article 33(3) UPCA).: Article 33(3) UPCA gives the Court discretion to decide whether to hear infringement and validity cases separately or together. In this case, the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 14, 2025, procedural order concerning R. 303 RoP, UPC_CFI_149/2025
Separation of proceedings is at the Court’s discretion (Rule 303(2) RoP).: The Court may separate proceedings involving multiple defendants, but such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering procedural efficiency and fairness to all parties. Joint proceedings are favored for procedural economy, especially when claims involve the same infringing embodiment.: In this case, hearing…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, April 11, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Late-filed prior art is generally inadmissible.: The UPC emphasizes a front-loaded procedural system, generally disallowing the introduction of new prior art after the exchange of written submissions. This approach safeguards procedural fairness and prevents undue delays (Art. 76 UPCA, Rules 171, 172, and 263 RoP). In this case, the claimant’s attempt to introduce a US…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 11, 2025, Amendment of claim and addition of a defendant, UPC_CoA_169/2025
Discretion of the Court of First Instance when applying Rules on amendment of claims and addition of parties (Rule 263 and 305 RoP).: The Court of First Instance has a broad discretion when considering allowance of amendments to claims and the addition of parties under Rule 263 and 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal clarified…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_127/2024
Discretion to separate proceedings, Rule 303(2) RoP: The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged. In this case, the court identified arguments both for and against seperation. While the proceedings against some defendants…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.