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, July 23, 2026, order on request for file inspection, UPC_CFI_7/2023
Once the Court has issued a final decision or order concluding first-instance proceedings, the public generally has an interest in accessing the pleadings and evidence: Access to the pleadings and evidence fosters a better understanding of the decision in light of the parties’ arguments and the evidence relied upon, and enables judicial scrutiny, which is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 04, 2026, Confirmation by the Court of a settlement, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
A confirmation by the Court of a settlement can be enforced as a decision of the Court.: This follows from R. 365(1)S.1 RoP. Where applicable, the settlement agreement will be entered in the Register in redacted form only. Division LD Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_1536/2026 Type of proceedings Confirmation by the Court of a settlement Parties…
1 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, July 27, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
An applicant’s predominantly personal interest in access to the register may result in strict confidentiality obligations under Rule 262.2 RoP: When deciding on a confidentiality request under Rule 262.2 RoP, the Court may take into account that the applicant has a predominantly personal interest in accessing the register. As a result, the Court may apply…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 24, 2026, Order on Public Access to the Register, UPC_CFI_226/2024
Admissibility of public access requests under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a specific application: A member of the public must submit a reasoned request explaining the purpose of the requested access and specify the documents and evidence sought as precisely as possible (Sec. 15). In this regard it is sufficient that applicant wants to better undestand…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, Decision on infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025
FRAND behaviour: consent to amend NDA required: If an NDA between the parties prevents one party from making submissions or producing documents, and the other party, without reasonable justification, refuses to amend the NDA to enable such production, this shall be to the detriment of the latter party (headnote 1, Sec. 352 et seqq.).In such…
7 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf Local Division, July 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_209/2026
If a statement of claim is to be served under The Hague Convention and, according to the competent Chinese authority, the defendant “refuses to accept the documents,” the Court may deem the steps taken so far to be sufficient for good service: The Court attempted to serve the SoC on Defendants domiciled in China pursuant…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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 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 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 Düsseldorf, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_998/2026 et al
When assessing the requirement for a procedural security, namely the question whether the Claimant has “sufficient means” to compensate the Defendant for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings, only the financial situation of the Claimant should be taken into consideration, but not the financial situation of the holding company behind the Claimant.: 7. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024
Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025
The four-step equivalence test applied by LD The Hague forms a coherent whole suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalence.: 1.Technical equivalence Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context? 2. Fair protection for the patentee Is extending the protection of…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.