Institutions: Paris Local Division
- Brussels Local Division
- Central Division
- Duesseldorf Local Division
- Hamburg Local Division
- Helsinki Local Division
- Lisbon Local Division
- Local Division
- Luxembourg Court of Appeal
- Mannheim Local Division
- Milan Central Division
- Milan Local Division
- Munich Central Division
- Munich Local Division
- Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
- Paris Central Division
- Paris Local Division
- President of Court of First Instance
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
LD Paris, April 16, 2026, Infringement Action and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_138/2025, UPC_CFI_522/2025
Party-affiliated affidavits are valuable technical information but lack the probative value of independent expert opinions (R. 181(2) RoP).: Both parties submitted affidavits from current or former employees. The Court treated these as witness statements rather than expert opinions, but nonetheless considered them valuable technical information from persons with industry experience in the relevant technical area.…
5 min Reading time→ -
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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 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 Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 4, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_583/2025
An order to produce evidence under Art. 59 UPCA and R. 190 RoP requires the claimant to present reasonably available and plausible evidence supporting its infringement claim.: The claimant must specify evidence within the defendant’s control. The Court’s order is subject to safeguards for confidential information and the right against self-incrimination (Art. 59(1) UPCA). The…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris – 04. February 2026 – Security for Cost -UPC_CFI_5302025
A default judgment for failing to provide security for costs is a discretionary sanction (Rule 158.5, 355.1 RoP) and requires a clear failure of diligence.: The Court found no failure of diligence where the claimant blocked the required funds in time, sought clarification on the procedure, and promptly submitted a compliant guarantee after receiving guidance.…
4 min Reading time→ -
Local Division Paris, January 23, 2026, Final order, UPC_CFI_808/2025
A three-month preparation period for a complex provisional measures application is not an unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP, considering the technical complexity and multiple patents involved: The Court held that “delay” runs from when the applicant has, or should have, enough facts and evidence to file with a reasonable prospect of success (R. 206.2…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, January 16, 2026, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_702/2024, UPC_CFI_369/2025
Action on Infringement of Swiss part of European patent (non-UPC, Lugano Convention state): In view of the CJEU decision BSH vs Electrolux, the UPC does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Swiss part of the EP (non-UPC state, Lugano Convention). But it can rule on infringement unless there is a reasonable…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, November 21, 2025, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_697-2025
Clarification of “Unreasonable Delay” under Rule 211.4 RoP: The LD Paris clarifies that the relevant moment for assessing delay is the point in time when the applicant knew or should have known about the upcoming infringing act – not when infringement has already occurred, thereby aligning with other UPC case law (cf. UPC CoA ORD_44387/2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, September 23, 2025, Procedural Order concerning an application to intervene, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025
Intervention by a third party is admissible if a direct legal interest in the appeal’s outcome is established (R. 313 RoP): The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders. The Court found that the Applicant’s interest…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, September 17, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_697/2025
Key takeaway Appropriate length of objection is related to length of application for provisional measures.: The application filed had a length of 30 pages. Even though two intellectual property titles (a patent and its corressponding supplementary protection certificate) are at issue, the 470-page objection filed by the respondent was held to be inappropriate in the…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 22, 2025, order on joinder of infringement actions, UPC_CFI_132/2025, UPC_CFI_130/2025
Joinder of Infringement Actions: Parallel infringement cases concerning the same patent and product were joined under Rule 302 RoP for efficient case management. Division Local Division Paris UPC number UPC_CFI_132/2025 UPC_CFI_130/2025 Type of proceedings Place type of proceedings Parties Place parties Patent(s) Place patent(s) Jurisdictions Place jurisdictions Body of legislation / Rules Rule 5 RoP,…
1 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→ -
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 Paris, April 24, 2025, infringement judgment, UPC_CFI_440/2023
Infringement & Injunction: The defendant’s actions infringed the patent, leading to a permanent injunction under Article 63 UPCA. Specifically, the court found that the defendant’s LED chips infringed claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18 of the patent, justifying the injunction. Corrective Measures: The defendant must recall/destroy infringing products, with…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.