Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Munich, March 17, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_815/2024
A decision for an implied R. 262.2 RoP application is normally only warranted where a third party makes an application under R. 262.3 RoP, but there may be exceptions to allow the case to proceed: With a previous order dated 23 January 2025 (ORD_3866/2025), the Court referred to a previous order from the Central Division…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 18, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_339/2024
Neither the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law nor the alleged violation of the right to a lawful judge constitutes a valid ground for a preliminary objection.: According to Rule 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection is strictly limited to the following formal procedural grounds: (a) the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, (b)…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, March 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_425/2024
Background of the case: The Applicants request a security for costs under R.158 RoP by arguing that Respondent has its registered office in the People’s Republic of China so that it is alleged that it was not sufficiently certain that a cost decision would be accepted and could be enforced in China. The Respondent countered…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 11, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_201/2024
Timely lodging of statement of claim upon order of provisional measures: payment of court fees relevant (not timing of receipt): The applicant of provisional measures has to “start proceedings on the merits” of the case within 31 calendar days (or 20 working days, whichever is longer) from the date specified in the Court’s order (R.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, orders, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024
If infringement proceedings are ready for decision with regard to single national parts, decision should not be withheld if this would delay enforcement: This decision has gained relevance in light of the recent decisions on the long-arm jurisdiction (cf. CJEU, BSH v Electrolux (C-339/22); UPC LD Dusseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CFI_355/2023) according to which the…
2 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→ -
LD Mannheim, March 11, 2025, decisions, UPC_CFI_159/2024, UPC_CFI_162/2024
Infringement of traditional European patents (“bundle patents”): The applicable substantive law depends on whether the act was committed after the entry into force of the UPCA on June 1, 2023 (then UPCA), before (then national laws), or is “ongoing” (then generally UPCA with exceptions).: If the assertedly infringing act was committed after the entry into…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, March 7, 2025, Decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023
Late submission of new attacks on validity: The nullity plaintiffs raised two new validity attacks during the oral hearing: a novelty attack based on D7 (Onsemi) and an inventive step attack combining D3 (Nguyen) and D4 (Lürkens). Neither of these new attacks was considered, as they were raised for the first time during the oral…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_483/2024
Amendment of case (Rule 263 RoP): The claimant sought to amend the case to include the Netherlands after the patent was restored there. The application was made under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Reasonable Diligence Requirement (Rule 263.2(a) RoP) : The claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 04, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_115/2024, UPC_CFI_377/2024
Denial of additional written submissions (R. 36 RoP): The judge-rapporteur can permit additional submissions only if a justified request is made before the conclusion of the written procedure. The court denied both parties’ requests for additional written submissions due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Timing and justification of requests (R. 36 RoP) : The claimant’s…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 24, 2025, decision regarding award of costs, UPC_CFI_2/2023
In PI-proceedings an application for the determination of costs pursuant to R. 151 RoP is admissible in the event that the Court of Appeal has issued a basic decision on costs pursuant to R. 242.1RoP.: Pursuant to R. 150.1 RoP, the determination of costs may be the subject of separate proceedings following a decision on…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 25, 2025, Reimbursement of Court fees, UPC_CFI_208/2023, UPC_CFI_220/2024, UPC_CFI_221/2024
Reimbursement of Court fees should be proportionate to efforts already made by the Court : The purpose of R. 370.9 (b) and (e) RoP on reimbursement of fees in case of a withdrawal of an action is to ensure that the reimbursement is proportionate to the efforts already made by the Court. A complex patent…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 14, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_437/2024
A preliminary objection based on questions regarding the claimant’s standing to bring an action is inadmissible or at least unfounded.: The Court’s jurisdiction and competence, as referred to in R. 19.1 RoP, is not linked to whether a person bringing an action is ultimately entitled to bring the action or whether it is fully entitled…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, February 19, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_58/2024
Interpretation of Claims: When interpreting a claim, in addition to its wording, the application instructions and express disclosures in the description of the patent specification must be taken into account (headnote 2). Division LD Hamburg UPC number UPC_CFI_58/2024 Type of proceedings Infringement proceedings (and counterclaim for revocation) Parties Claimant: Lionra Technologies Ltd. Defendants: Cisco Systems…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, February 11, 2025, procedural order regarding changes in a case, UPC_CFI_214/2013
The main issues to be considered when addressing the admissibility of changes in a case are that the nature of the frontloaded procedure of the UPC must be protected and that during the process there are no such changes that the defendant’s right to defence is compromised.: If these two premises are protected there is…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, February 7, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_472/2024
The position of the party attacking the patent shall be protected to the same extent as that of the party defending the patent.: If the mandatory coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings before the UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way by extending the time limits for filing…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, February 12, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_714/2024
LD Munich competent to hear an infringement action, although appeal before the Court of Appeal is pending between the same parties regarding an action for provisional measures based on the same patent that was filed in first instance with the LD Düsseldorf : A case is not “pending before a division of the Court of…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.