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, July 29, 2025, Order on Request to Dismiss Infringement Action Due to Lack of Domestic Representative
Domestic Representative under German Patent Act Not Required for UPC Proceedings: The LD Mannheim clarified that Section 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), which requires foreign patentees to appoint a domestic representative for proceedings before German authorities, does not apply to infringement actions before the UPC. The Court emphasized that the UPC is governed…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 23, 2025, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Penalties should be proportionate to the value of the dispute and the level of non-compliance: The Court considered the proportionality of the penalties in relation to the value of the dispute (€15,000,000) and the defendants’ actions. The penalty system aims to encourage compliance while allowing for increasing sanctions for continued violations. Neither R. 354.3 or…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, July 21, 2025, order on harmonization of time periods, UPC_CFI_79/2025
Harmonizing Time Limits in Joint Proceedings: When a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) is filed jointly with a statement of defense, the time limit for responding to the CCR begins only after the claimant receives the substantive content of the CCR. This ensures procedural fairness and alignment between the infringement and revocation proceedings. Division Local Division…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 24, 2025 order on value in dispute in the case of a FRAND counterclaim, UPC_CFI_850/2024
The value in dispute for FRAND counterclaims is not limited to the value in dispute of the infringement action: A FRAND counterclaim expands the subject matter beyond the infringement action, especially if not limited to the patent-in-suit, and its value is determined by the scope of the license sought. Therefore, the introduction of a FRAND…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_359/2023
The UPC does not have jurisdiction to revoke the validated national part of a European Patent in relation to the United Kingdom with erga omnes effect: According to the ECJ’s ruling in BSH Hausgeräte, the court of the Member State of the European Union in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 4(1) Brussels Ia Regulation)…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 18, 2025, order on infringement claims relating to UK, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has jurisdiction to decide upon the infringement of the UK part of a EuropeanPatent: This applies as far as the infringement action relates to acts infringing the UK national part of the patent-in-suit. Whether infringement is given and an injunction and/or other measures can be granted has to be assessed under UK law.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 16, 2025, Order concerning request for the extension of time periods
Extension of time periods requires balancing the interests of the parties, the court, and the public (R. 9.3(a) RoP): Extensions are granted only in justified exceptional circumstances to ensure efficient proceedings. The court considers whether the requested extension will jeopardize the preparation of the oral hearing (reason 2.c)). In this case, the Defendants’ request for…
2 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Mannheim, July 9, 2025, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_292/2025
Language of the proceedings: If the language of the proceedings is not the language in which the patent was granted, Art. 49(5) UPCA allows to change the language of the proceedings. A change, however, requires that the President of the Court of First Instance consults all parties potentially affected thereby and the panel of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 27, 2025, request for time extension, UPC_CFI_344/2025
Harmonization of time limits is justified for efficient case management in multi-defendant cases: The Court aligned time limits for statements of defense for defendants represented by the same counsel and with close corporate ties to avoid procedural complications and promote efficiency. Harmonized time limit for statements of defense also applies to any counterclaim for revocation:…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order in infringement action, UPC_CFI_745/2024
Broad interpretation of motion for damages: A broadly phrased motion for damages can include damages from ancillary transactions, even if not explicitly stated. The court interpreted the Claimant’s initial motion for “all damages” to include profits from sales of sealing materials and service contracts connected to the allegedly infringing machines, based on the Claimant’s arguments…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_745/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_200/2025)
No special treatment for amendments in counterclaims for revocation: The Rules of Procedure on amendments apply equally to counterclaims for revocation as to infringement actions; no leniency is afforded to counterclaimants. All grounds for revocation and supporting documents must be included with the initial counterclaim. Late-filed prior art faces strict scrutiny: New prior art can…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023
No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Pre-emptive enforcement warning rejected: Applications for advance warnings of penalties for non-compliance are likely to be rejected if the court has already exercised discretion on enforcement. The claimant’s request for a warning of daily penalties was denied, as the court had already decided not to set such terms in the main proceedings. Time period for…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_410/2023
No reimbursement of court fees after withdrawal on the eve of the pronouncement of the decision on the merrits.: Assuming an exceptional case pursuant to R 370.9 (e) RoP, the court denies the reimbursement of court fees. The court points out that at the time of withdrawal, the decision was fully drafted and signed and…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has no jurisdiction over a European Patent with regard to those national parts of UPCA member states which have already lapsed before 1 June 2023. The same applies to national parts of non-UPCA-member states: Without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA, Art. 3 (c) UPCA vests upon the UPC jurisdiction over any pre-existing European…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_359/2023
Strict Application Principle for Amending Patents in Defense Against Revocation: Art. 76 (1) UPCA contains a strict application principle. Accordingly, a patent proprietor, who wishes to defend its patent in a limited version, has to submit a clear and comprehensive Application to amend the patent. This includes situations where the proprietor wishes to rely on…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, order of April 23, 2025, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Order for the preparation of the oral hearing: The Court issued an order for the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing. It highlights a number of key aspects and questions which, in the preliminary opinion of the judge-rapporteur, are likely to be of importance in the oral proceedings. The highlighted aspects are not exhaustive…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.