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
-
Court of Appeal, December 1, 2025, appeal against an order re. change of the language of proceedings
When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account. Relevant circumstances should primarily be related to the specific case and the position of the parties themselves, in particular the position of the defendant (headnote).: The…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, December 4, 2025, decision on withdrawal of infringement action and recoverable costs, UPC_CFI_415/2025
As the Court previously held (cf. LD Düsseldorf – UPC_CFI_355/2025 and UPC_CFI_186/2025 – Fujifilm/Kodak), the focus of appropriateness “is primarily on the amount of costs incurred” and this from an ex ante perspective. When assessing these costs, elements which could be taken into consideration (having regard to the specifical circumstances of a withdrawal of an…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on competence of the divisions, amendments of the patent, added matter, novelty, inventive step, scope of protection, permanent injunctions, interim award of costs, UPC_CoA_464/2024 etc.
The “same parties” requirement for exclusive local division jurisdiction under Art. 33(4) UPCA means the parties must be identical legal entities.: A revocation action by a claimant company is not barred by a pending infringement action against its parent and another subsidiary, as they are not identical parties. An exception for res judicata effect did not apply…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 25, 2025, Decision on claim interpretation medical use claim, added matter, sufficiency, inventive step, reasonable expectation of success, UPC_CoA_528/2024, UPC_CoA_529/2024
Inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) exists if scientific uncertainty at the priority date prevented a ‘reasonable expectation of success’, even if there was a ‘hope to succeed’.: The Court found that uncertainty about the relative contribution of a protein’s intracellular versus extracellular pathways in vivo was a critical factor preventing a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, November 21, 2025, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_697-2025
Clarification of “Unreasonable Delay” under Rule 211.4 RoP: The LD Paris clarifies that the relevant moment for assessing delay is the point in time when the applicant knew or should have known about the upcoming infringing act – not when infringement has already occurred, thereby aligning with other UPC case law (cf. UPC CoA ORD_44387/2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, November 27, 2025, decision regarding the admissibility of an appeal withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and the mootness of the intervenor’s appeal, UPC_CoA_70/2025, UPC_CoA_001/2025
An intervenor cannot contradict the party they support: The Court confirms that an intervenor must not act in contradiction to the supported party’s procedural acts or declarations. Consequently, the intervenor cannot oppose that party’s withdrawal of the appeal. The intervenor has no independent appellate standing: Procedural steps by an intervenor are permissible only insofar as…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, application to withdraw infringement action (R. 265 RoP), UPC_CFI_541/2025
Practical guidance on withdrawing an action against a single defendant in a multi-party case: The claimant had filed an infringement suit against two entities, Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC. However, after facing difficulties serving the claim and being informed by the first defendant that the second was a “non-existent company,” Leap Tools moved to withdraw…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, order re inspection and preserve evidence, UPC_CFI_885/2025
The court ordered the full disclosure of an expert’s inspection report to the patentee because the defendant failed to identify any trade secrets within the given deadline, confirming that parties must actively claim confidentiality to receive protection: Following a court-ordered inspection (saisie-contrefaçon) at a trade fair, an independent expert prepared a detailed report on the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 19, 2025, order re confidentiality (R. 262A RoP), UPC_CFI_539/2024
In response to confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent to an application for preservation of evidence (the alleged infringer), the court may order a partial redaction of the expert report before its release to the applicant (the patent holder): The court mandated the redaction of specific commercial data. This includes prices and order quantities, which…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 7, 2025, UPC_CoA_579/2025
Experimental data which are not disclosed in the patent specification are, as a general rule, not relevant to the interpretation of the patent claims.: The court confirms the principles on claim construction: The patent claim is not only the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent under…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 11, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025
Proper service of application of provisional measures when service via the official route fails: If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service does not effect service for several months, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for proper service.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, November 12, 2025, UPC_CFI_407/2025, UPC_CFI_408/2025
Pursuant to R. 197.1 RoP, the Court may order measures to preserve evidence without the defendant having been heard. R. 197.3 RoP specifies a review process by the defendant. The LD Brussels finds that this review is a two-step process: (1.) Was the ex parte order rightly issued considering the facts and evidence brought forward…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 31, 2025, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_630/2025
Realization of technical effects and “inferior embodiments”: When an attacked embodiment realizes all structural features of a device claim and the claim does not require the realization of a particular technical effect, the claim is infringed regardless of whether the composition of the structural features in the attacked embodiment achieve a technical effect intended by…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, November 5, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_461/2024, UPC_CFI_718/2024
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter, confirming a consistent disclosure standard across the UPC.: The Court confirmed the recent Dusseldorf LD decision (UPC_CFI_115/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) that for purposes of determining the correct priority date, the same standard applies as for added matter, as…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 31, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_755/2025 & UPC_CoA_757/2025
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.: The Court of Appeal denied the appliant’s request to apply R. 21.2 RoP (stay of the proceedings if an appeal is lodged), as the only existing appeal concerned a different matter (confidentiality) and no appeal on the preliminary objection existed. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, November 5, 2025, decision of the court of appeal, UPC_CoA_762/2024 and UPC_CoA_773/2024
Substantive content of application filed in non-EPO language: If an (international) patent application is filed in a non-EPO language, the filing of the translation of the application into the language of the proceedings will define the substantive content of the application with regards to the requirements of inadmissible amendments under Art. 123 (2) EPC. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 23, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CFI_497/2024
The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order…
5 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.