Institutions: 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 Paris, May 29, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_130/2025
Preservation of evidence: alignment between Claimant’s representatives and the expert before seizure does not affect impartiality: One defendant requested that an expert report submitted to the Judge Rapporteur at the end of seizure measures and the inspection of the defendant’s premises be declared null and void. They argued that there had been a preparatory meeting…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, June 1, 2026, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_998/2026 et al
When assessing the requirement for a procedural security, namely the question whether the Claimant has “sufficient means” to compensate the Defendant for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings, only the financial situation of the Claimant should be taken into consideration, but not the financial situation of the holding company behind the Claimant.: 7. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024
Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, decision in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_807/2024, UPC_CFI_334/2025
The four-step equivalence test applied by LD The Hague forms a coherent whole suitable for examining patent infringement by equivalence.: 1.Technical equivalence Does the variation solve (essentially) the same problem that the patented invention solves and performs (essentially) the same function in this context? 2. Fair protection for the patentee Is extending the protection of…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, May 20, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_553/2025
An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP.: In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the obligation to refrain from an act which has created a continuing disturbance must generally be interpreted as encompassing…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 19, 2026, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI-2228/2025, UPC_CFI-1546/2026
Assuming jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Regulation requires a sufficient connection between the defendant and the court seised: The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR).…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025
The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026
Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, May 5, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_727/2024
Prosecution file statements before the EPO, while not binding, may guide claim interpretation as reflecting the skilled person’s view (Art. 69 EPC, Art. 24(1)(c) UPCA): The claimant’s own statement during EPO grant proceedings — that abutment of a rolling body row against an edge was “essential” for achieving simultaneous preloading — confirmed the Court’s strict…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Ex parte inspection at trade fairs justified where concrete risk of evidence destruction exists (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197 RoP): The Court ordered ex parte inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair. The Applicant credibly demonstrated that the Defendant could remove the machine or deactivate pre-programmed processes via software update, rendering evidence…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 11, 2026, Order, UPC-CFI_478/2025, UPC_CFI_585/2026
Under R. 190 RoP and Art. 59(1) UPCA, evidence production orders require four cumulative conditions: plausible evidence, specified evidence within the other party’s control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality : The Court grounded this framework in prior UPC case law, specifically Winnow v Orbisk (LD The Hague, UPC_CFI_327/2024) and Oppo v Panasonic (CoA, UPC_CoA_298,299,300/2024). The conditions derive from R. 190.1…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_2028/2025, UPC_CFI_2031/2025
A review under R.197.3 RoP only benefits the party that files it; co-defendants who do not seek review remain bound by the original order: The Court held that where only one of several defendants files a review application, the review can only affect the order vis-à-vis that defendant, analogous to the principle that an appeal…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, May 7, 2026, Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025
Waiver of rights requires an explicit statement – prior admissions in first instance proceedings do not constitute a waiver (R. 150 RoP): An acknowledgment by a party that the opposing party was the “successful party” in first instance proceedings does not constitute a waiver of the right to claim compensation as a “partially successful party”…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, May 4, 2026, Order on Public Access to Case Files in Evidence Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1167/2026
The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type: Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, May 5, 2026, Order on Penalty Payments, UPC_CFI_1881/2025
Recurring penalty payments may be imposed for non-compliance with court orders under Rule 354(3) RoP: The amount of penalty payments shall be determined by the court in light of the significance of the order in question (UPC_CoA_845/2024, Belkin v. Philips). A prior threat of penalty payments is mandatory before imposition – also in provisional measures…
4 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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.