Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Duesseldorf, July 3, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_723/2025
Broad concept of “offering” pursuant to Art. 25(a) UPCA: The term “offering” must be interpreted autonomously and in an economic sense. It is sufficient to present an item so that a viewer can make an offer to acquire it (invitatio ad offerendum). Thus, neither price indication nor ability to deliver is required. The Court expressly…
6 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, 3 July 2026, Procedural Orders, UPC_CFI_604/2026 | UPC_CFI_2108/2026
Strict requirements for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP: The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 2, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Ex parte orders re. inspection and preservation of evidence at a trade fair booth can be ordered and executed within days under Art. 60 UPCA, R. 194(d), 196, 197, 199 RoP: The applicant filed an ex parte application for inspection and preseveration of evidence targeting the respondent’s trade fair booth. The UPC granted the requested…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, June 26, 2026, Alignment of UPC evidence production with parallel UK national proceedings under R. 190 RoP, UPC_CFI_629/2026, UPC_CFI_1357/2025
In an infringement action with a parallel counterclaim for revocation, the court had issued a first R. 190 RoP order (Order I), ordering the claimant to produce seven categories of evidence, which it did. The defendants then filed a second R. 190 RoP application (Application II), arguing that the evidence produced revealed further relevant material…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 26, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1035/2026
A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP: The defendant’s formal notice reserving rights to claim for a “defect in title” of supplied components established the tangible risk needed for the intervener’s legal interest.This interest was reinforced by…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 22, 2026, Decision, infringement action UPC_CFI_811/2024
Injunctions are not subject to the five-year limitation period under Art. 72 UPCA — no time bar applies to injunctive relief.: Art. 72 UPCA caps only claims for financial compensation. The deadline runs five years from the moment the claimant learns of the last infringing act. Injunctions, by contrast, look to the future, so this…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_293/2025 & UPC_CFI_868/2025
The date of the withdrawal declaration alone determines which version of Rule 370.9 RoP applies — and therefore the entitlement to a fee refund. When the action originally commenced does not matter.: Rule 370.9 RoP provides the legal basis for reimbursement. Its reimbursement trigger attaches to the withdrawal of the action. The rule entered into…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 16, 2026, infringement action, counterclaim, UPC_CFI_86/2025
An intangible data stream, like a video bitstream, is a “product” under Art. 25(a) and 25(c) UPCA, allowing direct enforcement of encoding patents against streaming services.: There is no relevant difference between data on a physical carrier and data transmitted over a network; the carrier has no technical significance for the data’s use. The bitstream…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, June 17, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1129_2026 and UPC_CFI_1130_2026
For late-stage interim relief requests (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP), urgency has a specific meaning: the applicant must prove a new, escalating risk justifying immediate action.: Applications for provisional measures are admissible at any stage of main proceedings, even towards the end, as there is no legal limitation under R. 206.1 RoP. However, when…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, June 10, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026 — Security for Costs Against Asset-Pledged Patent Litigation Entity
Florida Statutes’ conditions for recognizing foreign judgments reflect international standards and do not justify ordering security for costs under R. 158 RoP: The fact that a claimant is domiciled in the U.S. does not establish an enforcement risk. Section 55 of the Florida Statutes conditions recognition on ordre publique, reciprocity, and fair trial principles –…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 11, 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_1321/2025
Deadline extensions RoP are assessed strictly: party consent does not bind the Court where the extension would jeopardise hearing preparation: The Claimant requested a two-week extension of the R. 29(a) RoP deadline. Despite the Defendants’ consent (subject to reciprocity), the Court rejected the request, finding it would jeopardise the proper preparation of the oral hearing.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 10, 2026, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_758/2024, UPC_CFI_259/2025
Headnote: The claimant’s legitimate interest in the publication of a decision (Art. 80 UPCA) may, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, follow from the fact that the defendant has marketed the attacked embodiment by explicitly referencing to the key technology protected by the patent: Publication of the decision under Art. 80 UPCA (in…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, June 8, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_360/2026
Claimants need only plead sufficient facts for jurisdiction; citing the correct legal provision is not required (R. 13.1(i) RoP).: The Court held that R. 13.1(i) RoP requires the claimant to provide the relevant facts enabling the Court to assess jurisdiction. It is the Court’s duty to identify and apply the correct law (iura novit curia).…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, June 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1470/2026
Effective service date for an unrepresented defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court is calculated under R. 271.6.b RoP, subject to the “unless” conditions of that rule.: Where multiple defendants are served at slightly different times, the Court may set under R. 9.3 RoP uniform dates for the lodging of a Preliminary…
3 min Reading time→ -
Paris Local Division, June 5, 2026, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_684/2025
New arguments submitted late in the proceedings may be disregarded to uphold the front-loaded procedure (R. 9.2 RoP): The court has the discretion to declare inadmissible new non-infringement arguments and evidence that a defendant introduces for the first time in its Rejoinder. Defendants must present all grounds for non-infringement in their initial Statement of Defence…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, June 8, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2046/2025
.aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }Deemed service on a non-responsive foreign defendant: a registered letter is deemed served ten days after posting, regardless of whether it is collected (R. 271.6(b), R. 276.1 RoP).: Where postal service attempts are returned as “Unclaimed”, the passive or disinterested conduct of a defendant cannot obstruct the continuation of…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.