Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Munich, October 12, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_3452/2026
Alternative service under R. 275.2 RoP may be ordered once formal service attempts fail for reasons attributable to the defendant, provided it is not contrary to the law of the state of service (R. 275.4 RoP): The Court held that insisting on further formal service, once the defendant had actual knowledge of the claim, would…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, October 12, 2026, review of case management orders, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025
Mandatory fee payment under R. 333.3 is a condition precedent for lodging an application for panel review under R. 333.2 RoP (mn. 22): An application under R. 333 RoP is an autonomous preliminary remedy against case management orders. Under R. 333.3 RoP in conjunction with R. 15.2 RoP, an application is legally deemed not to…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, September 7, 2026, inspection and evidence preservation, UPC_CFI_1332/2026
An order for inspection and/or preservation of evidence requires a sufficient likelihood of infringement : Sufficient, when a patent infringement appears plausible; excessive standards of proof must not be applied. The existence of non-infringing alternatives does not automatically defeat the infringement likelihood unless those alternatives make the applicant’s submission implausible. Additional factors increasing likelihood: Factor…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 21, 2026, Inspection and preservation of evidence, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
Three-step test for determining the scope of the disclosure of the detailed description to be prepared by an expert (confirmation of UPC_CFI_539/2024): Step 1: Does the information in question constitutes a trade secret, personal data, or other confidential information (Art. 58 UPCA)? Step 2: Is the information irrelevant for the question of infringement? If so,…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 2, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2660/2026
Alternative service may be authorized under Rule 275.1 RoP upon establishing good reason when standard service under Rules 270 to 274 RoP proves impossible.: Where regular postal delivery under Rule 271.4(a) RoP fails at the registered seat, documents remain uncollected at a postal depot, and the defendant’s known representative declines consensual service, standard service is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, October 6, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_137/2025, UPC_CFI_512/2025
Under Rule 171(2) RoP, a defendant is not required to provide counter-measurements if the claimant’s initial measurements regarding a claim feature are inherently unconvincing and inconclusive✓ Where the claimant’s experimental data fails to isolate the alleged buffering effect from the geometry of multiple casing inlets, the proof remains inconclusive on its face. In such circumstances,…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, September 15, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_245/2025, UPC_CFI_618/2025
Digital simulations cannot replace direct examination of the attacked products to prove non-infringement: The defendant relied on simulations rather than examining the real attacked optics, despite having had ample opportunity to do so since service of the statement of claim. The Court held this choice does not justify a further briefing right or additional evidence-taking…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 18 September 2026, decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_575/2025 and UPC_CFI_1135/2025
A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP): – The defendants relied on a licence agreement also disputed in parallel Dutch proceedings, but only referred to the submissions in the Dutch proceedings…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, September 3, 2026, procedural order on time limits after stay of proceedings is lifted, UPC_CFI_871/2026
Rule 296.3 RoP is to be understood to mean that, after stayed proceedings are resumed, the applicable time limits continue to run from the date of the order resuming the proceedings, taking into account the time limits that had already expired prior to the stay of the proceedings.: Rule 296.3 RoP reads as follows: “While…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 2, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_297/2025, UPC_CFI_651/2025
The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld the patent-in-suit, which relates to “SHARING MULTIMEDIA CONTENT IN A PEER-TO-PEER CONFIGURATION”, and found that the patent in its upheld version was indirectly infringed by the Disney+ streaming service. The decision focusses on claim construction, validity and some procedural aspects, applying the UPC’s established case law, for example regarding…
3 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025
Rule 116.3 RoP governs the consequences of a party’s non-attendance at the oral hearing, treating them as relying on their written submissions.: If a defendant fails to attend the oral hearing despite being properly summoned, the court may proceed to issue a final decision on the merits rather than a default judgment under Rule 116.5…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 24, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action with Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_495/2025 and UPC_CFI_494/2025
A SEP holder is only required to offer a single FRAND-compliant licensing route: pool or bilateral (hn. 1): Competition law does not require a patent holder to offer both a pool licence and a bilateral licence; indicating one route that meets FRAND requirements is sufficient, aligning with prior LD Munich case law (Huawei v Netgear).…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, Order on Application for Provisional Measures, UPC_CFI_1535/2026
For the assessment of urgency it is relevant when the applicant was able to physically obtain and examine the potentially infringing product: Information obtained earlier is only relevant if such information (e.g. drawings) allow applicant to determine with sufficient certainty whether the potentially infringing product is infringing the patent in suit. The applicant of preliminary…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 25, 2026, Decision on Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_56/2025, UPC_CFI_864/2025
Direct infringement of a product claim turns on objective capability, not the manufacturer’s intended or recommended use: For direct infringement of a product claim under Art. 25(a) UPCA, the decisive factor is whether the accused embodiment is, due to its nature and suitability for use, objectively capable of fulfilling the claim features; regardless of the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 21, 2026, Order on the Release of Information in Inspection and Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
Scope of disclosure in the inspection and preservation proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA): A three-step test governs the scope of disclosure of a detailed description to an applicant in inspection and preservation proceedings (Art. 58 UPCA) – Continuing of earlier LD Düsseldorf decision (UPC_CFI_539/2024, November 19, 2025, headnotes 1–3 – Bekaert v. Siltronic). First, it must…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, August 17, 2026, Order on Admission of Auxiliary Request, UPC_CFI_806/2025, UPC_CFI_185/2026
An amendment to a party’s case cannot be allowed if it could have been foreseen from the outset of the proceedings (R. 263 RoP, R. 30.2 RoP): Granting leave to amend at a late stage would allow the applicant to change its litigation strategy after the fact. A diligent patentee should coordinate its EPO and…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 17, 2026, Decision on Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation and Cost Allocation, UPC_CFI_492/2025, UPC_CFI_1309/2025
It is permissible to make a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement of the patent: The court relied on the Court of Appeal’s Clarification order of 16 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_40/2026, Emboline v. AorticLab), confirming that the procedural approach of making the decision on the revocation counterclaim dependent on an infringement finding is…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.