Institutions: Paris Central Division
- 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
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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 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 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 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 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→ -
CD Paris, January 17, 2025, decision in first instance on validity, UPC_CFI_316/2023
“Generous standard” with regard to late-filed facts and evidence: While the front-loaded approach of the UPC system requires the parties so submit facts and evidence relied on as early as possible, a generous standard is to be applied with regard to submissions in a Reply to a Statement of Defence. A Claimant is allowed to…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, September 16, 2024, decision by default in revocation action, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Requirements of a decision by default: Pursuant to Rule 355 RoP a decision by default against the defendant may be granted where: i) the relevant request is submitted by the claimant; ii) the defendant fails to take a step within the time limit foreseen in the Rules of Procedure or set by the Court, or…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, December 27, 2024, Order concerning an application for additional Security for Costs, Rule 158 RoP, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Modification instead of additional request: Requests for increased security for costs are treated as modifications of existing orders, requiring analysis under Rule 158 RoP. Power to amend orders on security for costs: The UPC can amend orders on security for costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP if the facts underlying the initial order have changed.…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, December 27, 2024, Application under Rule 333 RoP for review of security for costs, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Incorrect citation of legal provisions is harmless: The Court must consider a motion even if the legal provisions cited are incorrect, provided the correct legal grounds can be identified from the arguments and facts. The same applies if an application refers to an incorrect order. Change in factual circumstances can impact an existing order on…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, December 18, 2024, decision in revocation action, UPC_CFI_454/2023
Standstill provisions do not impact UPC’s jurisdiction: Even if a standstill provision requiring pre-suit notification is breached, this does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction or the admissibility of the action. The Court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), but that such…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.