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, October 22, 2026, decision, UPC_CFI_47/2025, UPC_CFI_68/2025
Claims introduced for the first time during the interim proceedings in the infringement action, based on the scope of the patent in dispute within the framework of the auxiliary requests and the related submission of facts, are not admissible: The claimant sought, for the first time during the interim procedure, to extend its infringement allegations…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 22, 2026, final decision, UPC_CFI_52/2025, UPC_CFI_67/2025
Criteria for assessment of equivalence: Like Panel 1 of the LD Düsseldorf (cf. UPC_CFI_807/2024, decision of May 27, 2026), Panel 2 of the LD Düsseldorf applies the assessment criteria for equivalence under patent law established by the LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239/2023, decision of November 22, 2024; UPC_CFI_479/2025, order of September 11, 2025), as, pursuant 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 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 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 Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026
An “attorneys’ eyes only” regime needs the consent of the party losing access rights (R. 262A.6 RoP): A confidentiality order must give at least one natural person per party access, plus their legal representatives. The Court can only exclude all natural persons of a party if that party agrees. A simple objection kills the request.…
7 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.