Institutions: Local Division
-
Milan Local Division, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_181/2025
Joint request for stay of proceedings removes court discretion (Rule 295(d) RoP, Art. 43, 76(1) UPCA): When all parties jointly request a stay, the court must grant it, regardless of the permissive wording in the rule. This upholds party autonomy in determining the subject matter and conduct of their case. Partial stays are permitted for…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_365/2023
Pre-emptive enforcement warning rejected: Applications for advance warnings of penalties for non-compliance are likely to be rejected if the court has already exercised discretion on enforcement. The claimant’s request for a warning of daily penalties was denied, as the court had already decided not to set such terms in the main proceedings. Time period for…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_63/2025
Ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders may be granted if the applicant provides sufficient evidence of likely infringement (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 197.3 RoP).: The court will grant such orders without hearing the defendant if the applicant submits all reasonably available evidence supporting a likelihood of patent infringement or threat thereof. The review…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_410/2023
No reimbursement of court fees after withdrawal on the eve of the pronouncement of the decision on the merrits.: Assuming an exceptional case pursuant to R 370.9 (e) RoP, the court denies the reimbursement of court fees. The court points out that at the time of withdrawal, the decision was fully drafted and signed and…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, May 23, 2025, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_163/2024
Assessment of original disclosure: The possibility of alternative options for relative positions of two elements of the claimed subject matter does not imply that a feature directed at one of the elements lacks support, as these alternatives are options, and are not inextricably connected with the arrangement of the feature as claimed (sec. 66). Provided…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 23, 2025, Order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI191/2025 and 192/2025
International jurisdiction by anchor defendant.: Pursuant to Art. 8(1) Brussels ibis Regulation (BR), a person domiciled in an EU Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled. In the present case, the judge rapporteur held it…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, May 21, 2025, order on application for cost security, UPC_CFI_758/2024
Requirements for requesting cost security based on undue burden of enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP, the Court may, upon a party’s request, order the opponent to provide adequate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the defendant, which the applicant may be liable…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 13, 2025, decision on second medical use claims, UPC_CFI_505/2024 (sic!) [UPC_CFI_505/2023]
Requirements for the finding of infringement of second medical use claims: For a finding of infringement of second medical use claims, the claimant must show and prove (i) as an objective element, that there is either a prescription for use according to the patent, or at least additional circumstances showing that such use may be…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, April 14, 2025, procedural order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024
The Local Division in Duesseldorf opted for a joint hearing of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, prioritizing procedural efficiency and a unified interpretation of the patent (Article 33(3) UPCA).: Article 33(3) UPCA gives the Court discretion to decide whether to hear infringement and validity cases separately or together. In this case, the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 14, 2025, procedural order concerning R. 303 RoP, UPC_CFI_149/2025
Separation of proceedings is at the Court’s discretion (Rule 303(2) RoP).: The Court may separate proceedings involving multiple defendants, but such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, considering procedural efficiency and fairness to all parties. Joint proceedings are favored for procedural economy, especially when claims involve the same infringing embodiment.: In this case, hearing…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_127/2024
Discretion to separate proceedings, Rule 303(2) RoP: The UPC has the discretion to separate proceedings involving multiple defendants. When deciding whether to separate, the court will consider procedural efficiency and whether any party would be unfairly disadvantaged. In this case, the court identified arguments both for and against seperation. While the proceedings against some defendants…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_336/2024, UPC_CFI_605/2024
Request for security of legal costs under Rule 158 RoP: Defendants requested security for legal costs, citing the Claimant’s financial instability and potential difficulties in enforcing a cost decision. The Claimant argued its solvency, highlighting progress in capital raising and debt restructuring initiatives. Defendants argued enforcement challenges due to the Claimant being based in Singapore,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 14 April 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_119/2025
Service of legal documents does not require actual physical receipt: As per Rule 271.6.b RoP, service is deemed effective even if physical acceptance of a document is refused, as long as the addressee was properly notified and had a reasonable opportunity to collect it. In this case, the defendant’s inaction in collecting the statement of…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 16 April 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_539/2024
Evidence preservation can secure proof of specific acts of infringement, e.g. use, import, or offering for sale (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 ff. RoP): The UPC clarified that evidence preservation is not limited to proving the existence of infringing features but extends to demonstrating acts of infringement within the UPC’s jurisdiction. This includes securing documents…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, May 8 2025, Decision concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2778423 B1
Background of the case: The Claimant brought an infringement action against the Defendant who filed a Counterclaim for Revocation, alleging a lack of enablement, a lack of novelty, and a lack of inventive step. However, they raised certain novelty and inventive-step objections for the first time in their Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_365/2023
The UPC has no jurisdiction over a European Patent with regard to those national parts of UPCA member states which have already lapsed before 1 June 2023. The same applies to national parts of non-UPCA-member states: Without prejudice to Art. 83 UPCA, Art. 3 (c) UPCA vests upon the UPC jurisdiction over any pre-existing European…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, 2 April 2025, Decision of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_359/2023
Strict Application Principle for Amending Patents in Defense Against Revocation: Art. 76 (1) UPCA contains a strict application principle. Accordingly, a patent proprietor, who wishes to defend its patent in a limited version, has to submit a clear and comprehensive Application to amend the patent. This includes situations where the proprietor wishes to rely on…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.