Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, application to withdraw infringement action (R. 265 RoP), UPC_CFI_541/2025
Practical guidance on withdrawing an action against a single defendant in a multi-party case: The claimant had filed an infringement suit against two entities, Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC. However, after facing difficulties serving the claim and being informed by the first defendant that the second was a “non-existent company,” Leap Tools moved to withdraw…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 17, 2025, order re inspection and preserve evidence, UPC_CFI_885/2025
The court ordered the full disclosure of an expert’s inspection report to the patentee because the defendant failed to identify any trade secrets within the given deadline, confirming that parties must actively claim confidentiality to receive protection: Following a court-ordered inspection (saisie-contrefaçon) at a trade fair, an independent expert prepared a detailed report on the…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, November 19, 2025, order re confidentiality (R. 262A RoP), UPC_CFI_539/2024
In response to confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent to an application for preservation of evidence (the alleged infringer), the court may order a partial redaction of the expert report before its release to the applicant (the patent holder): The court mandated the redaction of specific commercial data. This includes prices and order quantities, which…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 11, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025
Proper service of application of provisional measures when service via the official route fails: If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service does not effect service for several months, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for proper service.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, November 12, 2025, UPC_CFI_407/2025, UPC_CFI_408/2025
Pursuant to R. 197.1 RoP, the Court may order measures to preserve evidence without the defendant having been heard. R. 197.3 RoP specifies a review process by the defendant. The LD Brussels finds that this review is a two-step process: (1.) Was the ex parte order rightly issued considering the facts and evidence brought forward…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 31, 2025, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_630/2025
Realization of technical effects and “inferior embodiments”: When an attacked embodiment realizes all structural features of a device claim and the claim does not require the realization of a particular technical effect, the claim is infringed regardless of whether the composition of the structural features in the attacked embodiment achieve a technical effect intended by…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, November 5, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_461/2024, UPC_CFI_718/2024
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter, confirming a consistent disclosure standard across the UPC.: The Court confirmed the recent Dusseldorf LD decision (UPC_CFI_115/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) that for purposes of determining the correct priority date, the same standard applies as for added matter, as…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, October 21, 2025, order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_553/2025
Competence of LD Hamburg, Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA: imminent infringement: To establish jurisdiction, at least the plausible allegation of infringing acts in the country in question is necessary. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 21, 2025, decision by default, UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024
Decision by default: According to R. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against the defendant may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. In view of this, LD The Hague stated that it…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 22, 2025, provisional measures, UPC_CFI_587/2025
The need for a certain amount of time to assess infringement does not generally constitute an unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP): In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 17, 2025, Order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_515/2025
Regular order in the PI proceedings (no decision by default) if the defendant does not lodge an objection within the deadline set by the Court: The Court may issue a regular order for provisional measures based on the application for provisional measures, rather than a decision by default, when a defendant chooses not to lodge…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 16, 2025, order re. service of PI request under the Hague Convention
If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service informs the Court several months after the request that service cannot be effected because the defendant does not exist at the provided address, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 29, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_496/2025
An infringement action can be withdrawn with the defendant’s consent under Rule 265.1 RoP, leading the Court to declare the proceedings closed.: Before the written procedure closed, the claimant applied to withdraw the action. The defendants consented, and the Court, following the parties’ joint will, allowed the withdrawal and closed the case. When an action…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 2, 2025, decision, UPC_CoA_764/2024, 774/2024
Added matter standard – directly and unambiguously derivable: Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information a person skilled in the art, based on objective considerations and referring to the filing date and using its general technical knowledge, would…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Intervention in appeal proceedings is admissible if a direct legal interest in an interim order is shown (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was allowed to intervene in the appeal proceedings because the confidentiality regime for license agreements submitted in the proceedings could affect the Applicant’s business interests by exposing its confidential information to competitors. Legal…
2 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, September 23, 2025, order, UPC_CFI_342/2025
The court established a confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP for documents preserved in the preservation of evidence containing confidential information.: Content 1 Access was granted to the applicant’s representatives, one external technical advisor (bound by professional confidentiality rules), and a designated individual from the applicant company (Rule 262A.6 RoP).: The Court did not follow…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.