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
-
Central Division Paris, January 26, 2026, Order concerning review pursuant to R. 333 RoP, UPC_CFI_999/2025
A subsidiary is not the “same party” as its parent under Art. 33(4) UPCA if it has its own genuine business activity, regardless of corporate control: “Same party” is a strict concept. Parent and subsidiary are normally distinct parties, even with 100% shareholding or strong control. They are only treated as one if their interests…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 29, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_571/2024
In bifurcated cases, a Local Division is bound by a Central Division’s decision amending patent claims, which then forms the basis for its infringement analysis: In a bifurcated setup, the Local Division hearing infringement cannot ignore amendments made by the Central Division in parallel revocation proceedings. Once the Milan Central Division amended EP 3 756…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, January 26, 2026, order regarding a request pusuant to R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_917/2025
Difference between R. 262A RoP request and R. 262.2 RoP request: According to case-law, only R. 262A RoP allows the Court to restrict the use of confidential information by the opposing party and its representatives. A request under R. 262.2 RoP that certain information of written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential does not automatically…
5 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Paris, January 23, 2026, Final order, UPC_CFI_808/2025
A three-month preparation period for a complex provisional measures application is not an unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP, considering the technical complexity and multiple patents involved: The Court held that “delay” runs from when the applicant has, or should have, enough facts and evidence to file with a reasonable prospect of success (R. 206.2…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 26, 2026, Order concerning a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025, UPC_CoA_791/2025, UPC_CoA_793/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1510/2025
Failure to comply with the time limit for application for cost decision can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights: Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge, within the time limit, an application for a decision on their respective costs, in accordance with Rule 151 of the Rules of…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 16, 2026, Order regarding application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_000935/2025
The CoA grants the application for suspensive effect only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect.: An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74.1 UPCA). It must…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 19, 2026, Order regarding confidentiality of FRAND negotiations, UPC_CFI_481/2025
General order was issued stipulating that submissions on details of FRAND negotiations between the parties, even if they are only introduced into the proceedings in future pleadings, are already protected under R. 262A RoP : The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to at least one of the parties, because it relates to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, January 16, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_702/2024, UPC_CFI_369/2025
Action on Infringement of Swiss part of European patent (non-UPC, Lugano Convention state): In view of the CJEU decision BSH vs Electrolux, the UPC does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Swiss part of the EP (non-UPC state, Lugano Convention). But it can rule on infringement unless there is a reasonable…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_5/2025, UPC_CoA_237/2025, UPC_CoA_328/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 60% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 9, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_257/2025
Withdrawal of appeal permitted upon respondent consent (R. 265.1 RoP): The rule for withdrawing an action applies equally to appeals. The respondent’s consent fulfills the condition for withdrawal, as they no longer have a legitimate interest in a decision. 20% court-fee refund where withdrawal filed before 31 December 2025 (R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, old version): Pre‑2026…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, January 12, 2026, Decision by default, UPC_CFI_350/2025
A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit: The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant’s right to an expeditious procedure. The defendant was served in the USA via…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_628/2024; UPC_CFI_125/2025
Infringement of a medical device requires a potential use to be lege artis. A use that damages the device cannot establish infringement.: The claimant argued for an infringing use that required piercing the device’s mesh. The Court held this was not a proper, professional use but an emergency measure, and thus irrelevant for the infringement…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026
Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024
For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025
Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.