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 30, 2025 Decision on merits, UPC_CFI_26/2024
Late filed argument based on known document: The Court can reject a new line of arguments pursuant to R. 9.2 RoP in a case where the issue has been raised from the outset and the new argument is based on completely different passages of a lengthy document. Neither the Court nor the other party may…
2 min Reading time→ -
President of the CFI, July 16, 2025, order on change of language of the proceedings, UPC_CFI_351/2025
For language of the proceedings, particular consideration is attached to defendant’s working environment and communication channels by which legal and technical departments are expected to provide support in preparing their defence on the alleged infringement. : When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, 9 July 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_355/2023, UPC_CFI_186/2025
Representation Costs in Cost Proceedings: Proceedings for cost decisions under R. 150 et seq. RoP are summary proceedings. Awarding compensation for the additional costs of the cost proceedings is not envisaged in the Rules and it would give the parties an incentive to spend more resources in the summary proceedings than necessary, thus resulting in…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 30, 2025, order on reimbursement of Court fees, UPC_CFI_504/2023
Oral procedure is closed in the meaning of Rule 370.9 (c) RoP with the closure of the oral hearing.: Rules 111 to 119 RoP do not include a definition of the closure of oral procedure. However, it follows from Rule 111 (b) RoP, which stipulates that the Presiding Judge shall “ensure that the action is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 16, 2025, decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_140/2024
Reference to dependent claims by the parties for the first time in the oral proceedings for the interpretation of the independent claims may not be late.: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. The Court must independently construe the claims. The first reference to (further) subclaims at the oral hearing may…
3 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.