Institutions: Munich 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 Munich, August 17, 2026, Decision on Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation and Cost Allocation, UPC_CFI_492/2025, UPC_CFI_1309/2025
It is permissible to make a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement of the patent: The court relied on the Court of Appeal’s Clarification order of 16 July 2026 (UPC_CoA_40/2026, Emboline v. AorticLab), confirming that the procedural approach of making the decision on the revocation counterclaim dependent on an infringement finding is…
3 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Munich, July 29, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_515/2026, UPC_CFI_1797/2026
An “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP need not be the complete original file. An excerpt reproducing the protected information can suffice.: The decisive criterion is whether the submitted document reveals the specific information or evidence for which restriction is sought under R. 262A.1 RoP, not whether it is technically unprocessed or complete. R. 262A.3…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, August 6, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_1569/2025
A request to raise or lower the ceiling for recoverable costs must be clear and explicit.: A request to adjust the cost ceiling (Article 2(4) of the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023 on the scale of recoverable costs ceilings) is only deemed to have been made if it is clear and…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 27, 2026, Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises, UPC_CFI_1746/2026, UPC_CFI_1747/2026, UPC_CFI_1751/2026, UPC_CFI_1752/2026
Art. 60(1) UPCA is a lex specialis displacing general confidentiality rules under Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262, 262A RoP in evidence preservation proceedings (Sec. 30): While Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP grant the Court a discretion to order confidentiality measures to protect confidential information, Art. 60(1) UPCA mandatorily requires the…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 22, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_293/2025 & UPC_CFI_868/2025
The date of the withdrawal declaration alone determines which version of Rule 370.9 RoP applies — and therefore the entitlement to a fee refund. When the action originally commenced does not matter.: Rule 370.9 RoP provides the legal basis for reimbursement. Its reimbursement trigger attaches to the withdrawal of the action. The rule entered into…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 11, 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_1321/2025
Deadline extensions RoP are assessed strictly: party consent does not bind the Court where the extension would jeopardise hearing preparation: The Claimant requested a two-week extension of the R. 29(a) RoP deadline. Despite the Defendants’ consent (subject to reciprocity), the Court rejected the request, finding it would jeopardise the proper preparation of the oral hearing.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, May 5, 2026, Interim Conference, UPC_CFI_165/2025, UPC_CFI_665/2025
It was agreed that number of invalidity attacks should be limited to five or six and the number of auxiliary requests should be limited to about ten: The large number of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests were discussed during the interim conference. It was agreed that the parties shall limit their attacks/auxiliary requestsas follows:Defendants shall…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 23, 2026, order on cost security, UPC_CFI_617/2025
FRAND security of defendant does not relieve claimant from providing cost security : A bank guarantee provided by a defendant, as part of an objection of compulsory licence under antitrust law, as security for any potential licence payment obligations towards the claimant and thus to avert an injunction claim asserted by the claimant (“FRAND security”),…
3 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Munich, March 11, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_63/2024, UPC_CFI_449/2024
The “attacked embodiment” is defined by the claimant’s asserted technical features, not just specific product examples, and can include unknown or future products.: The claimant can exemplify infringement on a sample product. The burden then shifts to the defendant to specifically dispute why other listed products do not fall under this definition. Registration in the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 24 February 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_609/2025
Representation by attorney at law or patent attorney (Art. 48, 58 UPCA): A party can choose freely between being represented by an attorney at law, a patent attorney or a team of both. There is no obligation to consider the nature of the case. This is also reflected in the headnotes: 1) It follows from…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1510/2025
Failure to comply with the time limit for application for cost decision can only be remedied by re-establishment of rights: Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge, within the time limit, an application for a decision on their respective costs, in accordance with Rule 151 of the Rules of…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, January 13, 2026, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_628/2024; UPC_CFI_125/2025
Infringement of a medical device requires a potential use to be lege artis. A use that damages the device cannot establish infringement.: The claimant argued for an infringing use that required piercing the device’s mesh. The Court held this was not a proper, professional use but an emergency measure, and thus irrelevant for the infringement…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, decision, december 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_437/2024, UPC_CFI_681/2024
Squeeze of claim interpretation and added matter: Claim interpretation Principles The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law (Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_405/2024, 19 June 2025 – Alexion/Amgen). Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but must construe the claim independently (Court of Appeal,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, December 12, 2025, decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_146/2024 et al
The application of a legal standard by the Court of First Instance (CFI), which was established by the Court of Appeal (CoA) subsequent to the oral hearing, does not in itself necessitate a reopening of the oral hearing.: In its assessment of the inventive step, the Munich Local Division applied the test established by the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, December 12, 2025, Order on Security for Costs, UPC_CFI_525/2025
Security for costs for Taiwanese company may be ordered: Security for costs application against a claimant company established in Taiwan can be accepted as the facts provided in the case indicate that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome especially because neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provide certainty…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.