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 Düsseldorf, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_336/2024, UPC_CFI_605/2024
Request for security of legal costs under Rule 158 RoP: Defendants requested security for legal costs, citing the Claimant’s financial instability and potential difficulties in enforcing a cost decision. The Claimant argued its solvency, highlighting progress in capital raising and debt restructuring initiatives. Defendants argued enforcement challenges due to the Claimant being based in Singapore,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_119/2025
Service of legal documents does not require actual physical receipt: As per Rule 271.6.b RoP, service is deemed effective even if physical acceptance of a document is refused, as long as the addressee was properly notified and had a reasonable opportunity to collect it. In this case, the defendant’s inaction in collecting the statement of…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, 16 April 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_539/2024
Evidence preservation can secure proof of specific acts of infringement, e.g. use, import, or offering for sale (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 ff. RoP): The UPC clarified that evidence preservation is not limited to proving the existence of infringing features but extends to demonstrating acts of infringement within the UPC’s jurisdiction. This includes securing documents…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, May 8 2025, Decision concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2778423 B1
Background of the case: The Claimant brought an infringement action against the Defendant who filed a Counterclaim for Revocation, alleging a lack of enablement, a lack of novelty, and a lack of inventive step. However, they raised certain novelty and inventive-step objections for the first time in their Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim…
5 min Reading time→ -
UPC Court of Appeal, order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025 (see also UPC_CoA_237/2025)
Order regarding request for stay of proceedings (R. 295 RoP): In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision soon…
1 min Reading time→ -
UPC Court of Appeal, Order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024
Claim construction principles: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has no jurisdiction over a European Patent with regard to those national parts of UPCA member states which have already lapsed before 1 June 2023. The same applies to national parts of non-UPCA-member states: Without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA, Art. 3 (c) UPCA vests upon the UPC jurisdiction over any pre-existing European…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_359/2023
Strict Application Principle for Amending Patents in Defense Against Revocation: Art. 76 (1) UPCA contains a strict application principle. Accordingly, a patent proprietor, who wishes to defend its patent in a limited version, has to submit a clear and comprehensive Application to amend the patent. This includes situations where the proprietor wishes to rely on…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxemburg, April 18, 2025, application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_166/2025
Suspensive effect of an appeal must only be ordered in exceptional circumstances: The application for suspensive effect is admissible but must be dismissed as unfounded. A order on suspensive effect may be considered, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 24, 2025, infringement judgment, UPC_CFI_440/2023
Infringement & Injunction: The defendant’s actions infringed the patent, leading to a permanent injunction under Article 63 UPCA. Specifically, the court found that the defendant’s LED chips infringed claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18 of the patent, justifying the injunction. Corrective Measures: The defendant must recall/destroy infringing products, with…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, April 18, 2025, Generic Order, UPC_CFI_526/2024
Reasonable number of auxiliary requests: To ascertain what constitutes a reasonable number of auxiliary requests, several factors are to be considered: the complexity of the technology involved, the number of prior art documents, the individual validity attacks and the presentation and structure of the auxiliary requests. It is not relevant whether there are multiple proceedings…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, order of April 23, 2025, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Order for the preparation of the oral hearing: The Court issued an order for the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing. It highlights a number of key aspects and questions which, in the preliminary opinion of the judge-rapporteur, are likely to be of importance in the oral proceedings. The highlighted aspects are not exhaustive…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order in cost proceedings, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_626/2024, UPC_CFI_115/2025, UPC_CFI_116/2025
Costs calculated based on the German Lawyer’s Fees Act (RVG) are recoverable : The German Lawyers’ Fees Act stipulates statutory minimum fees for proceedings conducted before the German courts. It can be assumed that the fees calculated in accordance with this Act are generally necessary and reasonable and therefore also recoverable before the UPC. Division…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order on costs, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_121/2025, UPC_CFI_124/2025, UPC_CFI_626/2024
Recoverable costs must be reasonable and proportionate: “Reasonable” essentially means necessary. Based on the ex-ante standpoint of a reasonable and economically sound party, the decisive factor is whether the cost-incurring measure appeared objectively necessary and suitable to achieve the legitimate procedural objective. The measure must therefore have appeared appropriate for the prosecution or defense of…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 17, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_846/2024
A preliminary objection may relate to a part of an infringement action only: Defendants’ objection to the UPC’s jurisdiction over acts commited prior to the start of the UPC is admissible. Possible UPC jurisdiction on infringing actions solely occurred before June 1, 2023: Defendant states in its preliminary objection that one attacked embodiment was only…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, April 7, 2025, Order concerning R. 263 and R. 265 RoP, UPC_CFI_472/2024
Rule 263(3) RoP allows for unconditional limitation of claims, covering both the relief sought and the cause of action.: Rule 263(3) RoP applies if a patentee asserts a plurality of patents and then renounces one of them. Therefore, Rule 265 RoP concerning the case in which theClaimant withdraws the action – all its claims –…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 4, 2025, Decision on infringement and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_501/2023
Jurisdiction over multiple defendants with commercial relationship and same infringement (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).: Multiple defendants can be sued at the domicile, principal place of business, or place of business of one defendant if they have a commercial relationship and the action concerns the same alleged infringement (“anchor-defendant”). Headnote 1 of the decision clarifies: In the…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.