Institutions: Local Division
-
LD The Hague, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1612/2025
Classification as confidential if parties agree on confidential nature of the information. : The Court acknowledges the confidential nature of specific information after the claimant did not object to the defendant’s corresponding assertion. A pre-existing broader NDA prevents a party from imposing a narrower confidentiality circle in UPC proceedings.: The Court determined that if confidential…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_858/2025
The assessment of whether an action becomes devoid of purpose (R. 360 RoP) is based on the interest o the party that filed the action. : The court assesses whether an action is devoid of purpose based on the claimant’s legitimate legal interest (R. 360 RoP). The defendant’s interest is not autonomously considered in this…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Paris, April 10, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_301/2025
The RoP lack specific pleading rules for a FRAND defence.: Unlike in case of a counterclaim for revocation (R. 29 et seq. RoP) or an application to amend the patent (R. 30 et seq. RoP), where the number and content of the pleadings are precisely set out, the Rules of Procedure do not contain respective…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025; UPC_CFI_629/2025
Evidence production applications (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP) require four cumulative conditions: reasonably available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.: The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. This condition is assessed on a prima facie basis and is twofold, considering(a) whether the requesting party presented…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1110/2025 and UPC_CFI_1111/2025
Costs paid under a first-instance decision are recoverable if that decision is overturned on appeal. The appeal’s outcome invalidates the initial cost order (Rule 151 RoP).: The Court reasoned that the reversal of the main decision removes the legal basis for the initial cost order, making previously paid amounts recoverable in the subsequent cost proceedings.…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2070/2025
The UPC lacks international jurisdiction over non-EU/UPC defendants when alleged infringing acts occur exclusively in a third country, as there is no connection to the UPC territory.: Based on Art. 4, 7(2), and 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court found it was not “appropriate” under Art. 71b(2) to extend jurisdiction, as the…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 10, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1594/2025
Novelty may be destroyed by implicit disclosure where the skilled person would inevitably infer a feature from the prior art (Art. 54, Art. 138(1)(a) EPC).: The lack of novelty need not stem solely from what is explicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed in a prior art document. It may also arise from what is necessarily implied,…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, April 7, 2026, final order, UPC_CFI_2255/2025
Universal jurisdiction doctrine consolidated: The panel — departing from its own earlier position in Dyson/Dreame I (UPC_CFI_387/2025) and following the Court of Appeal’s ruling (UPC_CoA_789/2025 and UPC_CoA_813/2025) — held that the UPC is a court of a member state within the meaning of Art. 71a BR. Its territory encompasses all Contracting Member States. Consequently, the UPC possesses universal jurisdiction…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, March 31, 2026, alignment of deadlines, UPC_CFI_360/2026
A minor deviation in deadlines for multiple defendants makes a request to align them reasonable for procedural efficiency, as per the court’s discretion under R. 9.3(a) RoP. : Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the defendants’ request for alignment of the time limit for filing the Statement of Defence is…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 20, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1849/2025
Fairness-based language change requires balancing all relevant circumstances; if interests are equal, the defendant’s position is decisive (Art. 49(5) UPCA, R. 323 RoP): The President applied the Court of Appeal’s multi-factor framework, considering case-related circumstances (predominant language in the technology field, language of exhibits) and party-related circumstances (nationality, domicile, size, internal working language, coordination possibilities).…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1049/2025
The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025): According to Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025, the revised rules re. the Table of Court…
2 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_519/2024, UPC_CFI_64/2025
Advertising materials are not covered by Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA and therefore cannot be ordered destroyed: The Court granted destruction of infringing products, but expressly excluded advertising materials. It held that Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA covers products and the materials and equipment relevant to their production, not mere promotional materials depicting the products. The Court also refused…
2 min Reading time→ -
Düsseldorf LD, March 18, 2026, Decision on infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_135/2024, UPC_CFI_477/2024
In the FRAND context, a dominant position may exist where consumers expect standard-compliant smart TVs to decode all video codecs covered by the standard: The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard cannot realistically be marketed without…
3 min Reading time→ -
Brussels LD, March 18, 2026, Procedural Order (R. 158 RoP)(II), UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026
The Brussels Local Division did not consider enforcement of a UPC costs order in Costa Rica to be unduly burdensome on the evidence presented: The Court held that the defendants had not shown that recognition and enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica were “unduly burdensome” within the meaning of the UPC case law. In particular, the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 16, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025
Court adopts functional claim construction, rejecting narrow interpretations (Art. 69 EPC): The court found that a “switchable device” is not limited to mechanical optics but includes electronic controls. “Coupling” does not require free-space propagation, and a “different second laser beam” does not necessitate a separate laser source or different wavelength. This functional approach was decisive…
5 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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.