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 Munich, 24 February 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_609/2025
Representation by attorney at law or patent attorney (Art. 48, 58 UPCA): A party can choose freely between being represented by an attorney at law, a patent attorney or a team of both. There is no obligation to consider the nature of the case. This is also reflected in the headnotes: 1) It follows from…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_344/2025; UPC_CFI_735/2025; PR-UPC-CFI-0000639/2026
One fee for a joint counterclaim in a single action (R. 370.7 RoP): When multiple defendants file a single counterclaim for revocation in the same action only one one value-based fee applies. Separate, later counterclaim requires its own fee (R. 370.7 RoP; Art. 70 UPCA): A defendant served later who files its own counterclaim –…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025
Rehearing is an exceptional remedy; only fundamental, outcome‑determinative procedural defects justify reopening final appeal decisions (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247 RoP): The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 12, 2026, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_723/2025
Non-infringement arguments which are for the first time submitted with the Rejoinder can be rejected as late-field: If a defendant has not (timely) contested that the challenged embodiments infringe the patent in suit and if the court follows the claim interpretation of claimant, infringement will be assumed for the purposes of the proceedings for provisional…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024
If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025
Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, February 10, 2026, cost decision, UPC_CFI_1738/2025
An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs: The Court rejected the Applicants’ argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an “arbitrary limitation”. It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025
According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, application to stay proceedings, UPC-CoA-937/2025
A stay of UPC proceedings pending a parallel EPO opposition is discretionary, even if a rapid decision of the EPO is expected: Pursuant to Article 33(10) UPCA and R. 295(a) RoP, an exception to the principle that the Court will not stay revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings applies when a rapid decision may be expected…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, February 18, 2026, application to amend, UPC_CFI_616/2025
An amendment to include a new product is permissible, but may be unnecessary if the initial claim for injunctive relief is already broadly worded: The Court found the claimant’s request for relief against infringing products “and/or further versions or variants thereof” was already broad enough to cover the new product. Even if one would consider…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 18, 2026, suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_19/2026
Applications for suspensive effect against interim cost awards are admissible in provisional measures cases: The Court clarified that the prohibition on suspensive effect in R. 223.5 RoP does not apply to appeals against interim cost awards (R. 220.1(c) RoP), which are considered orders under Art. 62 UPCA. Suspensive effect is an exception granted only (i)…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 17, 2026, final decision, UPC_CoA_302/2025
Pursuant to Art. 75(1) UPCA, where the CoA sets aside a decision of the CFI, it shall, as a rule, give a final decision itself: The CoA, after considering the appeal of the Claimant (and revocation defendant) against the judgment of the CFI in the counterclaim for revocation to be well-founded, must, in order to…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, February 9, 2026, decision concerning a decision of the EPO to reject a request for unitary effect
Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012: Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 requires a patent to be granted for all UPC Member States; a “carve-out” for non-designated states is not permissible. Division UPC Court of Appeal UPC number UPC_CoA_8/2026 Type of proceedings Appeal against a decision concerning an Application to annul a decision…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_583/2025
An order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP requires the claimant to present reasonably available and plausible evidence supporting its infringement claim.: The claimant must specify evidence within the defendant’s control. The Court’s order is subject to safeguards for confidential information and the right against self-incrimination (Art. 59(1) UPCA). The…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris – 04. February 2026 – Security for Cost -UPC_CFI_5302025
A default judgment for failing to provide security for costs is a discretionary sanction (Rule 158.5, 355.1 RoP) and requires a clear failure of diligence.: The Court found no failure of diligence where the claimant blocked the required funds in time, sought clarification on the procedure, and promptly submitted a compliant guarantee after receiving guidance.…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Cost decision, UPC_CFI_658/2025
1. Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately, even though the decision on the reimbursability of these costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. Therefore, the ceilings for the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately (follow up to UPC_CFI_121/2025…
5 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.