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 Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025
No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: 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 booth at the MEDICA trade…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025
No Default Decision Despite Non-Response: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, decision, december 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_437/2024, UPC_CFI_681/2024
Squeeze of claim interpretation and added matter: Claim interpretation Principles The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law (Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_405/2024, 19 June 2025 – Alexion/Amgen). Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but must construe the claim independently (Court of Appeal,…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 30 December 2025, Decision re. application to set aside a decision of the EPO, UPC_CFI_1771/2025
The UPC applies EU law when reviewing EPO decisions, ensuring EU legal guarantees are respected in the administrative procedure (Art. 1(2), Art. 20 UPCA): The EPO rejected the application for unitary effect because the patent had not been granted for all participating Member States at the time of grant and of the request for unitary…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 7 January 2026, Decision in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_433/2024
An application to substantively amend a patent is only admissible if a full, consolidated set of claims is filed in time with the deadline of the application (R. 30 RoP): The Court cannot redraft claims for a party due to the principle of judicial neutrality. Amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstruction, ensuring clarity…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_2/2026
A discretionary review requires hearing the other party and will be dismissed if it disrupts first-instance proceedings without showing the impugned order was “manifestly erroneous” (R. 220.3 RoP): The court will weigh the appellant’s delays against the respondent’s right to respond. The request for discretionary review may be dismissed to maintain procedural efficiency. Courts have…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 19, 2025, Order concerning the need to adjudicate pursuant to R. 360 RoP, UPC-CoA-906/2025
An appeal can be disposed of under R. 360 RoP if it becomes devoid of purpose, meaning the appellant no longer has a legal interest in its continuation: An appeal against a procedural order excluding evidence becomes moot if the main action is subsequently decided in the appellant’s favor, as no further advantage can be…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 24, 2025, Order concerning an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision, UPC-COA-0000911/2025
Appellate review of cost decisions is limited to a marginal review (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 221 RoP): The Court of Appeal only intervenes if awarded costs are beyond “reasonable and proportionate” or deviate from principles inherent in Art. 69 (1) UPCA and R. 150 et seqq. The Court of Appeal recognizes that the first-instance judge-rapporteur…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 29, 2025, decision on revocation action, UPC_CoA_71/2025
Accuracy of translation to be checked at an early stage: The Appellant argued that a translation of a Korean prior art document filed by the Respondent in first instance was incorrect and at best inaccurate and filed own translations on appeal. The CoA holds that these translations are late filed and shall be disregarded. Given…
9 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, Standing Judge, December 29, 2025, order regarding an application for suspensive effect, UPC-COA-0000936/2025
No “manifestly” erroneous decision if point of contention is a complex issue requiring in-depth-analysis: The Appellant argues that the impunged order of the LD Mannheim is based on the evidently incorrect assumption that a decision by the UK Court on a request for a court determined license by the Appellant would be equal to an…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 23, 2025, decision on application for withdrawal, UPC_CoA_523/2024
No waiver of court fees in the context of an application for withdrawal: In principle, pursuant to Rule 250 RoP, the court may waive payment of the fee for a rehearing in the circumstances contemplated by Rule 245.2(a) or (b) RoP (fundamental procedural defect or criminal offence). However, it can only be decided in the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 22, 2025, decision on access to written pleadings and evidence, UPC-COA-0000886/2025
Interest in accessing documents not precluded by additional commercial interests: A law firm may also be a member of the public within the meaning of R. 262.1 (b) RoP, see already order of 9 January 2024, UPC_CoA_480, UPC_CoA_481/2024, Abbott v Powel Gilbert. The fact that a law firm (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) also pursues…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 19, 2025, decision on public access to the register, UPC_CoA_523/2024
No access to the register for a company that commercializes access to its subscribers: The objectives of balancing the interests pursuant to Art. 45 UPCA, and the requirement of representation ensure the proper conduct of proceedings, and would be compromised if access to written pleadings and evidence was granted pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP to…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, December 17, 2025, procedural order re. application of suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_926/2025, UPC_CoA_927/2025
Exception to the rule of no suspensive effect for appeals against first-instance orders granting access to files: Grounds for ordering suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA may exist where the Court of First Instance has granted an application for access to pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, and it is likely that this…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 10, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_316/2024 and UPC_CFI 547/2024
Recall, removal and destruction generally not applicable in cases of indirect infringement: Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. (Headnote 1) Claimant must provide sufficient facts to justify award of fixed-rate damages: Although…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, December 12, 2025, Order on Service in China, UPC CFI_766/2024
The Hague Service Convention is applicable in the UPC system regardless of any additional national requirements : The Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is entirely applicable in UPC System, regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State. Indeed: (i) the service system in the UPC is uniform; ii) participating Members…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, December 12, 2025, decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_146/2024 et al
The application of a legal standard by the Court of First Instance (CFI), which was established by the Court of Appeal (CoA) subsequent to the oral hearing, does not in itself necessitate a reopening of the oral hearing.: In its assessment of the inventive step, the Munich Local Division applied the test established by the…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.