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
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
LD Dusseldorf, May 21, 2025, order on application for cost security, UPC_CFI_758/2024
Requirements for requesting cost security based on undue burden of enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court may, upon a party’s request, order the opponent to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant, which the applicant may be liable…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 13, 2025, decision on second medical use claims, UPC_CFI_505/2024 (sic!) [UPC_CFI_505/2023]
Requirements for the finding of infringement of second medical use claims: For a finding of infringement of second medical use claims, the claimant must show and prove (i) as an objective element, that there is either a prescription for use according to the patent, or at least additional circumstances showing that such use may be…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Duesseldorf, April 14, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024
The Local Division in Duesseldorf opted for a joint hearing of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, prioritizing procedural efficiency and a unified interpretation of the patent (Article 33(3) UPCA).: Article 33(3) UPCA gives the Court discretion to decide whether to hear infringement and validity cases separately or together. In this case, the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_336/2024, UPC_CFI_605/2024
Request for security of legal costs under Rule 158 RoP: Defendants requested security for legal costs, citing the Claimant’s financial instability and potential difficulties in enforcing a cost decision. The Claimant argued its solvency, highlighting progress in capital raising and debt restructuring initiatives. Defendants argued enforcement challenges due to the Claimant being based in Singapore,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 16 April 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_539/2024
Evidence preservation can secure proof of specific acts of infringement, e.g. use, import, or offering for sale (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 ff. RoP): The UPC clarified that evidence preservation is not limited to proving the existence of infringing features but extends to demonstrating acts of infringement within the UPC’s jurisdiction. This includes securing documents…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, May 8 2025, Decision concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2778423 B1
Background of the case: The Claimant brought an infringement action against the Defendant who filed a Counterclaim for Revocation, alleging a lack of enablement, a lack of novelty, and a lack of inventive step. However, they raised certain novelty and inventive-step objections for the first time in their Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order in cost proceedings, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_626/2024, UPC_CFI_115/2025, UPC_CFI_116/2025
Costs calculated based on the German Lawyer’s Fees Act (RVG) are recoverable : The German Lawyers’ Fees Act stipulates statutory minimum fees for proceedings conducted before the German courts. It can be assumed that the fees calculated in accordance with this Act are generally necessary and reasonable and therefore also recoverable before the UPC. Division…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 22, 2025, order on costs, UPC_CFI_16/2024, UPC_CFI_121/2025, UPC_CFI_124/2025, UPC_CFI_626/2024
Recoverable costs must be reasonable and proportionate: “Reasonable” essentially means necessary. Based on the ex-ante standpoint of a reasonable and economically sound party, the decisive factor is whether the cost-incurring measure appeared objectively necessary and suitable to achieve the legitimate procedural objective. The measure must therefore have appeared appropriate for the prosecution or defense of…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2025, Decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_50/2024
Claim Interpretation of Product-by-Process Claims : Product-by-process claims should be interpreted based on the technical features imparted to the product by the process, not the process itself (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC). The court held that the key feature in this case was the ability to create a structural…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, March 26, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_260/2025
Ex parte inspection order granted to preserve evidence at a trade fair: The Court granted an ex parte order for inspection and evidence preservation under Article 60 UPC and Rules 194, 196, 197, and 199 RoP. The Applicant successfully argued that the inspection was urgent due to the limited availability of the allegedly infringing products…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 21, 2025, UPC_CFI_76/2024, order on withdrawal of complaint, UPC_CFI_76/2024
Cost reimbursement in case of withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation : If the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are withdrawn by the parties, 60% of the court fees can be reimbursed Division Local Division Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_76/2024 Type of proceedings Infringement action, counterclaim for revocation Parties Claimant: Hand Held…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 4, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_468/2024, UPC_CFI_687/2024
Referral of Counterclaim for Revocation (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP): The Local Division Düsseldorf referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division in Milan. The Parties had unanimously requested the, and requests by all parties will be granted unless strongcounterarguments require a different decision (UPC_CFI 14/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 2 February2024 –…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, March 7, 2025, Decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023
Late submission of new attacks on validity: The nullity plaintiffs raised two new validity attacks during the oral hearing: a novelty attack based on D7 (Onsemi) and an inventive step attack combining D3 (Nguyen) and D4 (Lürkens). Neither of these new attacks was considered, as they were raised for the first time during the oral…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 04, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_115/2024, UPC_CFI_377/2024
Denial of additional written submissions (R. 36 RoP): The judge-rapporteur can permit additional submissions only if a justified request is made before the conclusion of the written procedure. The court denied both parties’ requests for additional written submissions due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Timing and justification of requests (R. 36 RoP) : The claimant’s…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, December 3, 2024, Order re. procedural security against Defendant, UPC_CFI_140/2024
1. Not only the claimant but also the defendant may be ordered to provide security for legal costs within the meaning of R. 158 RoP.: (pp. 5 et seq.) Contrary to the Defendant´s position, this does not mean that Rule 158 RoP is in conflict with the UPCA. The power to order the provision of…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 29, 2024, request for simultaneous interpretation, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Discretionary interpretation: The UPC retains discretion in granting simultaneous interpretation, even when a party requests it. Rules 109.1 and 109.2(1) RoP highlight the Judge-Rapporteur’s authority to decide whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate. If the Judge-Rapporteur refuses the request for simultaneous interpretation, a party may, at its own expense, engage a simultaneous…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, November 29, 2024, procedural order rejecting submission, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Absent a reasoned request, and consequently a decision allowing further submissions, the Court will rejcect any submissions made after the stipulated periods.: Pursuant to R. 36 RoP, the judge-rapporteur may, on a reasoned request by a party, allow further written submissions to be exchanged within a period to be specified.In the case at hand, the…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.