Institutions: Local Division
-
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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 Munich, July 16, 2025, Order concerning an application for compensation
Withdrawal of Actions: Parties may withdraw actions and counterclaims before a final decision if there’s no legitimate interest in continuing according to R. 265.1 RoP, as is the case with settlements.In this case, both the claimant and the defendant withdrew their respective action and counterclaim after reaching a settlement. Withdrawal of Compensation Applications: Applications for…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, July 15, 2025, review of orders to preserve evidence, UPC_CoA_327/2025, UPC_CoA_002/2025
A request for preserving evidence does not require that this measure is sought without unreasonable delay. : It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for preserving evidence (R. 194.2(a) RoP) and the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for provisional measures (R. 209.2(b)…
4 min Reading time→ -
President of the CFI, July 16, 2025, order on change of language of the proceedings, UPC_CFI_351/2025
For language of the proceedings, particular consideration is attached to defendant’s working environment and communication channels by which legal and technical departments are expected to provide support in preparing their defence on the alleged infringement. : When deciding on an application to change the language of the proceedings to the language in which the patent…
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→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 9 July 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_355/2023, UPC_CFI_186/2025
Representation Costs in Cost Proceedings: Proceedings for cost decisions under R. 150 et seq. RoP are summary proceedings. Awarding compensation for the additional costs of the cost proceedings is not envisaged in the Rules and it would give the parties an incentive to spend more resources in the summary proceedings than necessary, thus resulting in…
3 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 Munich, July 3, 2025, infringement action, UPC_CFI_448/2025
Change of language of proceedings prioritizes fairness and the defendant’s position: The language of proceedings may be changed to the language in which the patent was granted if fairness and the defendant’s situation so require. The defendant’s position is decisive, especially where both parties are international and English is the common business and technical language.…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 27, 2025, infringement action, UPC_CFI_148/2024, UPC_CFI_503/2024
Single closure date for written procedure ensures fairness and efficiency: The Court confirmed that only one closure date for written submissions is permitted, rejecting the defendant’s request for separate dates for infringement and revocation proceedings. Admissibility of amended requests and burden of proof addressed: The Court found that any uncertainty about which requests and arguments…
3 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 Munich, July 3, 2025, procedural order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_127/2024 et al
Even if the Defendant of an infringement action is, formally, at the same time the Claimant of a counterclaim for revocation, they are entitled to a security also for procedural costs caused by filing the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP.: According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 2, 2025, procedural order on security for procedural costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_245/2025
An intervener on the Defendant’s side does not have to provide security for procedural costs pursuant to Rule 158 RoP. : While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 30, 2025, order on reimbursement of Court fees, UPC_CFI_504/2023
Oral procedure is closed in the meaning of Rule 370.9 (c) RoP with the closure of the oral hearing.: Rules 111 to 119 RoP do not include a definition of the closure of oral procedure. However, it follows from Rule 111 (b) RoP, which stipulates that the Presiding Judge shall “ensure that the action is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 20, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_149/2024, UPC_CFI_127/2024
In the case of service outside the UPCA Contracting Member States, preliminary objections must be filed within one month of the actual date of service.: R. 271.6 (b) RoP stating that a statement of claim shall in general be deemed to be served on the addressee on the tenth day following posting does not apply…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, June 16, 2025, decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_140/2024
Reference to dependent claims by the parties for the first time in the oral proceedings for the interpretation of the independent claims may not be late.: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. The Court must independently construe the claims. The first reference to (further) subclaims at the oral hearing may…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.