Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Düsseldorf, March 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Requests for further written pleadings under R. 36 RoP are assessed through a two-pronged balancing test weighing the party’s reasons against the impact on proceedings and delay risk.: The Court must take into account the reasons put forward by the requesting party as to why further pleadings are necessary. The Court must also weigh the…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, March 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_141/2026
Rule 14.2(b) RoP is an exception to the general language-of-proceedings rules and must be interpreted restrictively (Rule 14.2(b) RoP, Art. 49(1), Art. 49(2) UPCA).: The provision requires proceedings to be conducted in the official language of the Contracting Member State only if two specific conditions are both met. As an exception, this rule cannot be…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD The Hague, Infringement Action, February 24, 2026, UPC_CFI_619/2025
Broad injunctive relief covers future product variants without claim amendment (R. 263 RoP): Following the CoA’s Abbott/Sibio ruling (UPC_CoA_328/2024), a claimant requesting general injunctive relief covering patent claims can capture future product variants without amending its claim, provided the prayer for relief is drafted broadly enough, e.g., including “further versions or variants thereof.” Amendment to…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, February 25, 2026, UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025
A number of 42 auxiliary requests (ARs) in response to e Counterclaim for Revocation may be deemed unreasonable; the court can order the patentee to provide a structured tabular overview for procedural efficiency (Rule 30 RoP).: The court clarified that any further combinations of ARs not included in the claimant’s initial application to amend would…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, March 3, 2026, infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_43/2025, UPC_CFI_103/2025
Jurisdiction is affirmed if no preliminary objection is filed (Rule 19.7 RoP).: The defendants, including a US-based defendant, did not file a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP and were therefore deemed to have submitted to the UPC’s jurisdiction. Claim construction (Art. 69 EPC) takes into account function; optional embodiments in the description do not…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025
Functional claim construction; disregarding additional features: The patent is related to an optical device having a specific arrangement of a single input fiber for lighting. The accused embodiment comprises multiple input fibres, but only one of them is used for coupling input laser light; the other fibres are used for other functionalities that do not…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 24 February 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_609/2025
Representation by attorney at law or patent attorney (Art. 48, 58 UPCA): A party can choose freely between being represented by an attorney at law, a patent attorney or a team of both. There is no obligation to consider the nature of the case. This is also reflected in the headnotes: 1) It follows from…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_344/2025; UPC_CFI_735/2025; PR-UPC-CFI-0000639/2026
One fee for a joint counterclaim in a single action (R. 370.7 RoP): When multiple defendants file a single counterclaim for revocation in the same action only one one value-based fee applies. Separate, later counterclaim requires its own fee (R. 370.7 RoP; Art. 70 UPCA): A defendant served later who files its own counterclaim –…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 12, 2026, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_723/2025
Non-infringement arguments which are for the first time submitted with the Rejoinder can be rejected as late-field: If a defendant has not (timely) contested that the challenged embodiments infringe the patent in suit and if the court follows the claim interpretation of claimant, infringement will be assumed for the purposes of the proceedings for provisional…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024
If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025
Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, February 10, 2026, cost decision, UPC_CFI_1738/2025
An appeal against a revocation decision always has an automatic suspensive effect according to Art. 74(2) UPCA that applies to the entire decision, including the award of costs: The Court rejected the Applicants’ argument for a narrow interpretation, finding it an “arbitrary limitation”. It held the suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025
According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, February 18, 2026, application to amend, UPC_CFI_616/2025
An amendment to include a new product is permissible, but may be unnecessary if the initial claim for injunctive relief is already broadly worded: The Court found the claimant’s request for relief against infringing products “and/or further versions or variants thereof” was already broad enough to cover the new product. Even if one would consider…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_583/2025
An order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP requires the claimant to present reasonably available and plausible evidence supporting its infringement claim.: The claimant must specify evidence within the defendant’s control. The Court’s order is subject to safeguards for confidential information and the right against self-incrimination (Art. 59(1) UPCA). The…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris – 04. February 2026 – Security for Cost -UPC_CFI_5302025
A default judgment for failing to provide security for costs is a discretionary sanction (Rule 158.5, 355.1 RoP) and requires a clear failure of diligence.: The Court found no failure of diligence where the claimant blocked the required funds in time, sought clarification on the procedure, and promptly submitted a compliant guarantee after receiving guidance.…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.