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, 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024
If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 19, 2026, order on request for security for costs, UPC_CFI_541/2025 and UPC_CFI_1313/2025
Simply stating that a claimant’s registered office is located in Canada does not demonstrate that enforcing a cost order would be unduly burdensome and therefore does not justify an order for security for costs according to Art. 69(4) UPCA and R.158 RoP: Generally, the fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a country…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Cost decision, UPC_CFI_658/2025
1. Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately, even though the decision on the reimbursability of these costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. Therefore, the ceilings for the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately (follow up to UPC_CFI_121/2025…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Procedural orders of good service of PI decisions, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025
The publication of an order on the Court’s website, of which the Defendant had been notified via email, constitutes good service if there are no other effective means of informing the Defendant of the preliminary injunction and the ordering of further provisional measures.: In both cases, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025, the Court had previously ordered in…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 29, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_571/2024
In bifurcated cases, a Local Division is bound by a Central Division’s decision amending patent claims, which then forms the basis for its infringement analysis: In a bifurcated setup, the Local Division hearing infringement cannot ignore amendments made by the Central Division in parallel revocation proceedings. Once the Milan Central Division amended EP 3 756…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024
For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025
Breach of Candor (R. 192.3 RoP): No Partial Upholding of the Order: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025
No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.