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
-
CoA, May 19, 2026, order on request for a discretionary review, UPC-CoA-67/2026
Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP: When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025
The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026
Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024
Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA): The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Ex parte inspection at trade fairs justified where concrete risk of evidence destruction exists (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197 RoP): The Court ordered ex parte inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair. The Applicant credibly demonstrated that the Defendant could remove the machine or deactivate pre-programmed processes via software update, rendering evidence…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 11, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_478/2025, UPC_CFI_585/2026
Under R. 190 RoP and Art. 59(1) UPCA, evidence production orders require four cumulative conditions: plausible evidence, specified evidence within the other party’s control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality : The Court grounded this framework in prior UPC case law, specifically Winnow v Orbisk (LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_327/2024) and Oppo v Panasonic (CoA, UPC_CoA_298,299,300/2024). The conditions derive from R. 190.1…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2028/2025, UPC_CFI_2031/2025
A review under R.197.3 RoP only benefits the party that files it; co-defendants who do not seek review remain bound by the original order: The Court held that where only one of several defendants files a review application, the review can only affect the order vis-à-vis that defendant, analogous to the principle that an appeal…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, May 7, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025
Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP): An acknowledgment by a party that the opposing party was the “successful party” in first instance proceedings does not constitute a waiver of the right to claim compensation as a “partially successful party”…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, May 4, 2026, Order on Public Access to Case Files in Evidence Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1167/2026
The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type: Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings…
5 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, May 4, 2026, Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_552/2025
The skilled person under Art. 56 EPC is a notional figure, i.e., affiliations to specific companies are irrelevant and inadmissible as differentiating characteristics: The skilled person represents an average level of knowledge in the relevant technical field, reflecting common general knowledge at the priority date. This fictitious individual cannot be identified with any real person.…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, May 5, 2026, Order on Penalty Payments, UPC_CFI_1881/2025
Recurring penalty payments may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders under Rule 354(3) RoP: The amount of penalty payments shall be determined by the court in light of the significance of the order in question (UPC_CoA_845/2024, Belkin v. Philips). A prior threat of penalty payments is mandatory before imposition – also in provisional measures…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, May 5, 2026, Interim Conference, UPC_CFI_165/2025, UPC_CFI_665/2025
It was agreed that number of invalidity attacks should be limited to five or six and the number of auxiliary requests should be limited to about ten: The large number of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests were discussed during the interim conference. It was agreed that the parties shall limit their attacks/auxiliary requestsas follows:Defendants shall…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 4, 2026, review of an order to preserve evidence, request for the expert’s recusal, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
There is a basis for concern regarding an expert’s bias if – from the perspective of a knowledgeable and reasonable observer – certain circumstances give rise to justified doubts as to the expert’s impartiality or independence i.e., there is a likelihood that the expert’s decision will be influenced by factors other than the aforementioned duties.:…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 4, 2026, revocation of an order on inspection and evidence preservation, UPC_CFI_885/2025
An order for the preservation of evidence shall be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect if the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits before the court within a period of 31 calendar days or 20 working days from the date specified in the court order (release of expert description). To remedy the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 30, 2026, dismissal of confidentiality order, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 595/2024
A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP if it is seeking protection for information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. However, the application must be made during the proceedings on the merits if it can be reasonably foreseen that…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 7, 2026, refusal of provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1927/2025, 1928/2025
Re urgency requirement in case of provisional measures: – Applicant’s burden to present/prove: the gaining of knowledge of the infringing embodiment, the potential infringement, and its prompt verification. – Defendant’s burden to present/prove: the evidence from which it can be inferred that the applicant must have had prior knowledge and from which hesitant conduct can…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, April 30, 2026, order rejecting appeal as inadmissible, UPC_CoA_1/2026
Ex officio assessment of admissibility: The Court of Appeal verifies ex officio compliance with the time limits and rules governing the appeal. When deciding on the admissibility of an appeal, an order rejecting the appeal as inadmissible does not exceed the scope of the claims (sec. 18, sec. 32). Strict application of rules governing the procedures…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.