Institutions: Mannheim 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 Mannheim, April 16, 2026, Infringement action and Counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_819/2024 and UPC_CFI_414/2025
Claim construction: The patent is its own lexicon, “purposive non-use” excludes intent not contamination, and claim features can be technically interdependent.: The term “alkali-free” was interpreted not as a complete absence but as a concentration below a specific threshold defined in the patent itself. The prohibition on “using neither arsenic nor antimony” was held to…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025
Functional claim construction; disregarding additional features: The patent is related to an optical device having a specific arrangement of a single input fiber for lighting. The accused embodiment comprises multiple input fibres, but only one of them is used for coupling input laser light; the other fibres are used for other functionalities that do not…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, February 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_344/2025; UPC_CFI_735/2025; PR-UPC-CFI-0000639/2026
One fee for a joint counterclaim in a single action (R. 370.7 RoP): When multiple defendants file a single counterclaim for revocation in the same action only one one value-based fee applies. Separate, later counterclaim requires its own fee (R. 370.7 RoP; Art. 70 UPCA): A defendant served later who files its own counterclaim –…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025
According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 30, 2026, Order by the Panel on application for the imposition of penalties, UPC_CFI_365/2023
A penalty order pursuant to R. 354.4 RoP may be issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone.: It is noted that Defendants’ opinion, that an Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone was not allowable, is not supported. The Panel has seen the Order of the CoA, to which Defendants refer. However, the Panel respectfully invites to reconsider…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 20, 2026, application for the imposition of penalties, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Enforcement of UPC orders in non-UPC territories requires prior recognition by national courts, but information orders can be enforced against defendants within the UPC territory (Art. 34 UPCA): The Court stresses that UPC decisions have automatic effect only within Contracting Member States. Outside that territory, they are treated as foreign judgments and must first be…
7 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 19, 2026, Order regarding confidentiality of FRAND negotiations, UPC_CFI_481/2025
General order was issued stipulating that submissions on details of FRAND negotiations between the parties, even if they are only introduced into the proceedings in future pleadings, are already protected under R. 262A RoP : The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to at least one of the parties, because it relates to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_850/2026
Admissibility of late submissions deferred post-hearing; panel to decide: The decision on rejecting the claimant’s allegedly late FRAND submissions, and final admission of the defendant’s reply, is deferred to the panel after the oral hearing. No extension of written procedure; narrow provisional reply allowed (Rule 36 RoP): The court closed the written phase and refused…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_414/2024, UPC_CFI_729/2024
Dismissal due to lack of substantiation after contest of facts : Defendants specifically denied that their products’ functionalities in question are incorporated in the source code of the attacked embodiments. Claimant fails to substantiate in more detail, why it is of the opinion, that this is not true or relevant and point to specific facts…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Procedural order re. adjournment of proceedings, UPC_CFI_414/2024
R. 114 RoP is applicable only in exceptional situations where, during the oral hearing, a specific issue or a specific in-depth investigation is identified as necessary and cannot reasonably be completed within the existing hearing slot. : Claimant’s request to reopen the oral hearing and to set a further date for the oral hearing was…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_338/2024
Direct infringement when supplying set of components: If the patent-protected product is specifically designed to easily assemble its components at the place of use without the addition of further items, the mere offering or supplying of all components already constitutes a direct patent infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. Direct infringement when supplying…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 16, 2025, order on the production of evidence, UPC_CFI_247/2025
Production of license agreements in FRAND context ordered.: Pursuant to R. 190 RoP and taking into account the stage of the proceedings, the production of license agreements was ordered insofar as the claimant agreed to submit the license agreements specified by it but could not receive the consent of its respective contractual partners to submit…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_481/2025
Key takeaway If the language of proceedings shall be changed and the parties’ interests are weighed, the defendant’s interests shall prevail in the event of equal outcome.: In the event that the weighing of interests of the defendant and the claimant results in a draw, the position of the defendant – having not initiated the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 27, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_521/2024
Rejection of submission: The court may, at its discretion, disregard not only unsolicited written submissions in addition to the regular written pleadings provided for in the RoP, but also the content of regular written pleadings that goes beyond the admissible content provided for in the RoP. This applies not only to new arguments or facts,…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 4, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_162/2024
Discretionary extension of time periods is interpreted narrowly (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): The court will only grant extensions for procedural deadlines with caution, prioritizing efficient proceedings and avoiding undue delay. Vacation-related absences may justify short extensions, but only if sufficiently substantiated (Rule 9.3(a) RoP): General references to staff absences or international coordination are insufficient; only specific,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, August 6, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_336/2025
Confidentiality of attorney billing records in cost proceedings (Rule 262A RoP, Art. 58 UPCA): Information about the detailed breakdown of lawyers’ hours worked is considered confidential, as such information is protected by attorney-client privilege. Access restrictions to confidential information cannot be limited to legal representatives alone without consent (Rule 262A.6 RoP): Restricting access to confidential…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 25, 2025, Procedural Order on Enforcement of Saisie Order, UPC_CFI_636/2025
Saisie Order is Limited to Systems and Evidence Physically Available at Designated Premises: The inspection may only cover what is physically present at the premises explicitly named in the court order. A defendant is not obliged to grant access to systems or data stored outside the specified premises, nor to coordinate with personnel or infrastructure…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.