Institutions: Duesseldorf Local Division
- Brussels Local Division
- Central Division
- Duesseldorf Local Division
- Hamburg Local Division
- Helsinki Local Division
- Lisbon Local Division
- Local Division
- Luxembourg Court of Appeal
- Mannheim Local Division
- Milan Central Division
- Milan Local Division
- Munich Central Division
- Munich Local Division
- Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
- Paris Central Division
- Paris Local Division
- President of Court of First Instance
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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 Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Cost decision, UPC_CFI_658/2025
1. Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately, even though the decision on the reimbursability of these costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. Therefore, the ceilings for the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately (follow up to UPC_CFI_121/2025…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Procedural orders of good service of PI decisions, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025
The publication of an order on the Court’s website, of which the Defendant had been notified via email, constitutes good service if there are no other effective means of informing the Defendant of the preliminary injunction and the ordering of further provisional measures.: In both cases, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025, the Court had previously ordered in…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 29, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_571/2024
In bifurcated cases, a Local Division is bound by a Central Division’s decision amending patent claims, which then forms the basis for its infringement analysis: In a bifurcated setup, the Local Division hearing infringement cannot ignore amendments made by the Central Division in parallel revocation proceedings. Once the Milan Central Division amended EP 3 756…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024
For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025
Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025
No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025
No Default Decision Despite Non-Response: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 10, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_316/2024 and UPC_CFI 547/2024
Recall, removal and destruction generally not applicable in cases of indirect infringement: Orders for recall, removal from the channels of commerce and destruction are generally not considered in cases where products are only challenged on the grounds of indirect patent infringement. (Headnote 1) Claimant must provide sufficient facts to justify award of fixed-rate damages: Although…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, December 5, 2025, order re. provisional measures, UPC_CFI_712/2025
An independent process claim and the corresponding description can only be relevant when determining the scope of protection of an independent product claim if the patent specification indicates that it also describes characteristics of the claimed product (headnote 1): Principle of Irrelevance (mn. 145): The court establishes that since the patent protects a product via a…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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 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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.