Institutions: Lisbon 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 Lisbon, May 26, 2026, Order on applications under R. 360 and 361 RoP, UPC_CFI_850/2026
R. 360 RoP requires that an event occured after the action was filed, rendering the action inadmissible or unfounded – this requirement is not fulfilled if the Defendant relies on an own earlier action requesting the Court to adjudicate FRAND-compliant terms for a cross-license agreement potentially concerning the patent-in-suit.: [6] Pursuant to R. 360 RoP,…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_858/2025
The assessment of whether an action becomes devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) is based on the interest o the party that filed the action. : The court assesses whether an action is devoid of purpose based on the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (R. 360 RoP). The defendant’s interest is not autonomously considered in this…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Lisbon, April 4, 2025, cost decision in PI proceedings, UPC_CFI_697/2024
Cost decision following an order rejecting a preliminary injunction: A decision on costs is possible following an order rejecting an application for a preliminary injunction (PI), although the strict wording of R. 150 et seq. RoP provide for a decision on costs only following a decision on the merits. Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA provides for…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, October 15, 2024, order dismissing PI based on patent infringement, UPC_CFI_317/2024
Challenging territorial competence requires more than denying infringement: The court held that simply denying infringement does not constitute a valid challenge to territorial competence under Art. 33 (1) (a) UPCA. Defendants must directly address and refute the “territorial connection element” to successfully contest jurisdiction. The court emphasized the distinction between a jurisdictional challenge and a…
4 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.