Institutions: Central Division
-
CD Paris, January 12, 2026, Decision by default, UPC_CFI_350/2025
A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit: The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant’s right to an expeditious procedure. The defendant was served in the USA via…
4 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
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→ -
CD Paris, October 20, 2025, revocation action and counterclaim for infringement, UPC_CFI_189/2024, UPC_CFI_434/2024
Inventive step analysis: objective problem, realistic starting points (more than one is possible), obviousness (Art. 56 EPC): The assessment of the inventive requires the following three steps: 1.) Identification of the objective problem underlying the claimed invention, which must be carried out in light of the patent’s specification. The problem should be identified in an…
6 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, July 28, 2025, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_239/2024
Claim construction: While terms used in patent documents should be given their normal meaning in the relevant art, the description and the drawings, when considered in the context of document’s contents and not in isolation, may give these terms a different meaning. In the case at hand, the Court affirmed, applying this principle, that according…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, July 22, 2025, decision by default on the revocation action, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Default Judgment on Revocation: Failure to comply with a court order (Rule 158 RoP) for security for costs can result in the dismissal of a revocation action by default (Rule 355.2 RoP), especially when the opposing party requests it. Non-compliance with a legally issued order and a request by a party are prerequisites for a…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, July 16, 2025, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_484/2025
Information on litigation costs does not justify confidentiality order vis-à-vis parties (R. 262A), but shall be treated confidential vis-à-vis the public (R. 262.2 RoP). : The information regarding the litigation costs does not concern the main subject matter of the (revocation) proceedings and does not directly influence claimant´s business activities. Defendant has a right to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, June 9, 2025, order on file inspection, UPC_CFI_309/2023
Access to pleadings and evidence – balancing public access and confidentiality: The order follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore (10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, para 43), namely that in a decision on a request under R. 262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of obtaining the…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, May 28, 2025, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_198/2024
Revocation of European patents can be limited to specific UPC Member States upon request (Art. 34, 76(1) UPCA; Rule 44(d) RoP): The Court confirmed it may revoke a European (bundle) patent only for the national part(s) specified by the claimant, not necessarily for all UPC Member States. This approach respects the adversarial nature of proceedings…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, April 11, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Late-filed prior art is generally inadmissible.: The UPC emphasizes a front-loaded procedural system, generally disallowing the introduction of new prior art after the exchange of written submissions. This approach safeguards procedural fairness and prevents undue delays (Art. 76 UPCA, Rules 171, 172, and 263 RoP). In this case, the claimant’s attempt to introduce a US…
2 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→ -
CD Paris, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Limited Scope of Rectification Under Rule 353 RoP: Rectification under Rule 353 RoP is limited to obvious errors (clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, obvious slips) evident from the decision’s reasoning – in other words, a discrepancy between the judge’s intended decision and its material representation, provided that this can be deduced from a comparison between…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, March 27, 2025, procedural order on application to intervene, UPC_CFI_698/2024
Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a directimpact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313. : The intervener must demonstrate a direct and present legal interest in the specific outcome sought by the supported party, a mere “guiding effect” on…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_829/2024
Revocation action initiation (R. 42 RoP): The revocation action was initiated by the defendant against the original claimant (Virdia Inc.). Application for substitution of parties (R. 305 RoP): The original claimant (Virdia inc.) applied to substitute the party with the new patent proprietor International N&H Denmark ApS. This is supported by a 2024 patent assignment…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, March 03, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Representation (Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA): A UPC representative with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal entity cannot validly represent that entity before the UPC. The representative must be sufficiently independent to ensure fair representation in patent law matters. Remediable defect (Rule 361 RoP) : Lack of valid representation renders pleadings void but…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, January 21, 2025, decision on validity, UPC_CFI_311/2023
A revocation claimant must present all grounds of invalidity with the Statement of Claim: In revocation actions, the claimant is required to specify the grounds of invalidity that allegedly affect the contested patent, as well as prior art documents relied upon to support any allegation of lack of novelty or inventive step in its statement…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.