Institutions: Central Division
-
CD Milan, April 10, 2026, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_480/2025
If any legitimate mapping of prior art onto claim features destroys novelty, the patent must be revoked (Art. 54 EPC).: When assessing novelty, the Court will examine the disclosure of the prior art document overall and will compare this disclosure to the scope of the patent-in-suit. If one way of “mapping” leads to the assessment…
5 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, April 8, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_280/2025
A realistic starting point in the same technical field does not automatically render the claimed invention obvious (Art. 56 EPC, Art. 65(1)–(2) UPCA).: Even if prior art qualifies as a realistic starting point, it remains relevant for the inventive step assessment that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CD Paris, March 30, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_258/2025
The revocation of an independent claim does not automatically affect the validity of unchallenged dependent claims, as the latter may possess autonomous patentability due to additional technical features.: Following the revocation of an independent claim, the patent proprietor may amend the patent to recast surviving dependent claims into independent form, provided the resulting configuration complies…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2296/2025
The list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive and cannot be extended to other defences such as lack of standing to sue or res judicata: The court confirmed, in line with the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Aylo v. DISH/SLING (UPC_CoA_188/2024) and Roku/Sun (UPC_CoA_288/2025), that Rule 19.1 RoP only permits objections on…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, March 13, 2026, Order on Application for Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_927/2025
Key takeaway Security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA / R. 158 RoP may be ordered where the claimant’s own financial situation gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a future costs award may not be recoverable or enforceable.: When assessing security for costs, the UPC looks at the financial position of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Central Division (Munich), February 24, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_829/2024
Patentees must draft precise numerical ranges in composition claims; unclear bases risk added matter (Art. 65(1),(2) UPCA; Art. 138(1)(c) EPC).: The Court construed the coposition as claimed in claim 1 of the Patent as comprising a range of marker molecule calculated in respect of the total sugar composition, while the application disclosed that the amounts…
3 min Reading time→ -
Central Division Paris, January 26, 2026, Order concerning review pursuant to R. 333 RoP, UPC_CFI_999/2025
A subsidiary is not the “same party” as its parent under Art. 33(4) UPCA if it has its own genuine business activity, regardless of corporate control: “Same party” is a strict concept. Parent and subsidiary are normally distinct parties, even with 100% shareholding or strong control. They are only treated as one if their interests…
5 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.