Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Düsseldorf, June 16, 2025, decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_140/2024
Reference to dependent claims by the parties for the first time in the oral proceedings for the interpretation of the independent claims may not be late.: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. The Court must independently construe the claims. The first reference to (further) subclaims at the oral hearing may…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_745/2024
Broad interpretation of motion for damages: A broadly phrased motion for damages can include damages from ancillary transactions, even if not explicitly stated. The court interpreted the Claimant’s initial motion for “all damages” to include profits from sales of sealing materials and service contracts connected to the allegedly infringing machines, based on the Claimant’s arguments…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_745/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_200/2025)
No special treatment for amendments in counterclaims for revocation: The Rules of Procedure on amendments apply equally to counterclaims for revocation as to infringement actions; no leniency is afforded to counterclaimants. All grounds for revocation and supporting documents must be included with the initial counterclaim. Late-filed prior art faces strict scrutiny: New prior art can…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 6, 2025, decision, UPC_CFI_324/2024, UPC_CFI_487/2024
Burden of proof for non-infringement: If the defendant claims that infringement is impossible due to factors outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendant must prove this. The claimant does not need to address such external factors. In the decision, the defendant unsuccessfully argued that infringement was impossible due to the design of existing…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023
No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…
4 min Reading time→ -
Milan Local Division, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_181/2025
Joint request for stay of proceedings removes court discretion (Rule 295(d) RoP, Art. 43, 76(1) UPCA): When all parties jointly request a stay, the court must grant it, regardless of the permissive wording in the rule. This upholds party autonomy in determining the subject matter and conduct of their case. Partial stays are permitted for…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Pre-emptive enforcement warning rejected: Applications for advance warnings of penalties for non-compliance are likely to be rejected if the court has already exercised discretion on enforcement. The claimant’s request for a warning of daily penalties was denied, as the court had already decided not to set such terms in the main proceedings. Time period for…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_63/2025
Ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders may be granted if the applicant provides sufficient evidence of likely infringement (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 197.3 RoP).: The court will grant such orders without hearing the defendant if the applicant submits all reasonably available evidence supporting a likelihood of patent infringement or threat thereof. The review…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_410/2023
No reimbursement of court fees after withdrawal on the eve of the pronouncement of the decision on the merrits.: Assuming an exceptional case pursuant to R 370.9 (e) RoP, the court denies the reimbursement of court fees. The court points out that at the time of withdrawal, the decision was fully drafted and signed and…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, May 23, 2025, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_163/2024
Assessment of original disclosure: The possibility of alternative options for relative positions of two elements of the claimed subject matter does not imply that a feature directed at one of the elements lacks support, as these alternatives are options, and are not inextricably connected with the arrangement of the feature as claimed (sec. 66). Provided…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 23, 2025, Order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI191/2025 and 192/2025
International jurisdiction by anchor defendant.: Pursuant to Art. 8(1) Brussels ibis Regulation (BR), a person domiciled in an EU Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled. In the present case, the judge rapporteur held it…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, May 21, 2025, order on application for cost security, UPC_CFI_758/2024
Requirements for requesting cost security based on undue burden of enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court may, upon a party’s request, order the opponent to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant, which the applicant may be liable…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 13, 2025, decision on second medical use claims, UPC_CFI_505/2024 (sic!) [UPC_CFI_505/2023]
Requirements for the finding of infringement of second medical use claims: For a finding of infringement of second medical use claims, the claimant must show and prove (i) as an objective element, that there is either a prescription for use according to the patent, or at least additional circumstances showing that such use may be…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 14, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024
The Local Division in Duesseldorf opted for a joint hearing of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, prioritizing procedural efficiency and a unified interpretation of the patent (Article 33(3) UPCA).: Article 33(3) UPCA gives the Court discretion to decide whether to hear infringement and validity cases separately or together. In this case, the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 14, 2025, procedural order concerning R. 303 RoP, UPC_CFI_149/2025
Separation of proceedings is at the Court’s discretion (Rule 303(2) RoP).: The Court may separate proceedings involving multiple defendants, but such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering procedural efficiency and fairness to all parties. Joint proceedings are favored for procedural economy, especially when claims involve the same infringing embodiment.: In this case, hearing…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_127/2024
Discretion to separate proceedings, Rule 303(2) RoP: The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged. In this case, the court identified arguments both for and against seperation. While the proceedings against some defendants…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_336/2024, UPC_CFI_605/2024
Request for security of legal costs under Rule 158 RoP: Defendants requested security for legal costs, citing the Claimant’s financial instability and potential difficulties in enforcing a cost decision. The Claimant argued its solvency, highlighting progress in capital raising and debt restructuring initiatives. Defendants argued enforcement challenges due to the Claimant being based in Singapore,…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.