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 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.