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, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025
The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026
Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by…
5 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Ex parte inspection at trade fairs justified where concrete risk of evidence destruction exists (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197 RoP): The Court ordered ex parte inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair. The Applicant credibly demonstrated that the Defendant could remove the machine or deactivate pre-programmed processes via software update, rendering evidence…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 4, 2026, review of an order to preserve evidence, request for the expert’s recusal, UPC_CFI_1696/2025
There is a basis for concern regarding an expert’s bias if – from the perspective of a knowledgeable and reasonable observer – certain circumstances give rise to justified doubts as to the expert’s impartiality or independence i.e., there is a likelihood that the expert’s decision will be influenced by factors other than the aforementioned duties.:…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 4, 2026, revocation of an order on inspection and evidence preservation, UPC_CFI_885/2025
An order for the preservation of evidence shall be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect if the applicant does not start proceedings on the merits before the court within a period of 31 calendar days or 20 working days from the date specified in the court order (release of expert description). To remedy the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 30, 2026, dismissal of confidentiality order, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 595/2024
A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP if it is seeking protection for information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. However, the application must be made during the proceedings on the merits if it can be reasonably foreseen that…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 7, 2026, refusal of provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1927/2025, 1928/2025
Re urgency requirement in case of provisional measures: – Applicant’s burden to present/prove: the gaining of knowledge of the infringing embodiment, the potential infringement, and its prompt verification. – Defendant’s burden to present/prove: the evidence from which it can be inferred that the applicant must have had prior knowledge and from which hesitant conduct can…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 28, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_869/2025
Admissibility of submissions : The admissibility of the documents and arguments submitted is a question of fact. Whether the defendant’s submissions in its rejoinder regarding the motion to amend are relevant to the decision in the present case, and whether they were filed late requires a thorough analysis. Such an assessment can only be made…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 23, 2026, Decision, Infringement action and CCfR, UPC_CFl_559/2024 and UPC_CFl_106/2025 – Quantificare v. Canfield
Pan-UPC-territorial orders under Art. 34 UPCA can be based on infringing acts in a “carved-out” Contracting Member State (Headnote; mn. 238 et seqq.): The claimant had excluded Germany from the infringement action before the UPC Düsseldorf LD for procedural reasons (parallel proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court for the German national portion of the same…
8 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_779/2024
For the objective elements of indirect infringement, it is not necessary that both components of the patent claim do exist (Art. 26 UPCA).: Where a patent claim protects a two-component product, the objective elements of indirect infringement are satisfied if the accused component is designed to cooperate with a second component configured in accordance with…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025
Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).: The Court reasoned that the reversal of the main decision removes the legal basis for the initial cost order, making previously paid amounts recoverable in the subsequent cost proceedings.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1849/2025
Fairness-based language change requires balancing all relevant circumstances; if interests are equal, the defendant’s position is decisive (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP): The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field, language of exhibits) and party-related circumstances (nationality, domicile, size, internal working language, coordination possibilities).…
3 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_519/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2025
Advertising materials are not covered by Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and therefore cannot be ordered destroyed: The Court granted destruction of infringing products, but expressly excluded advertising materials. It held that Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA covers products and the materials and equipment relevant to their production, not mere promotional materials depicting the products. The Court also refused…
2 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_135/2024, UPC_CFI_477/2024
In the FRAND context, a dominant position may exist where consumers expect standard-compliant smart TVs to decode all video codecs covered by the standard: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard cannot realistically be marketed without…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025
Court adopts functional claim construction, rejecting narrow interpretations (Art. 69 EPC): The court found that a “switchable device” is not limited to mechanical optics but includes electronic controls. “Coupling” does not require free-space propagation, and a “different second laser beam” does not necessitate a separate laser source or different wavelength. This functional approach was decisive…
5 min Reading time→ -
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 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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.