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, July 30, 2026, order concerning a preliminary objection, UPC-CFI-1901/2026
Re lis pendens (Art. 29 Brussels I recast): – Here, the UPC was not “the court first seized” based on the date on which the application for provisional measures was filed before the UPC.– The earlier application for provisional measures before the UPC and the later filed national French action for revocation of the SPC,…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 18, 2026, time extension request, UPC_CFI_1963/2025, UPC_CFI_1247/2026
The burden of diligence to obtain access to a non-confidential version of a brief lies with the party seeking it: Where an unredacted version of a brief (marked highly confidential “HC” in the CMS, only accessible to the court) is filed simultaneously with a redacted version (marked mutual “M” in the CMS, accessible to the…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Paris, July 29, 2026, Order on subsequent request to amend the patent and on late submissions, UPC_CFI_530/2025
A subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP is only admissible under exceptional and cumulative circumstances: The claimant must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been filed earlier with reasonable diligence, and that it does not unreasonably hinder the defendant(s) in conducting the proceedings. Both conditions must be met cumulatively (see…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 20, 2026, Order – Modification of Security for Costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_530/2025
Modification of security requires genuinely new and unforeseeable developments: R. 158 RoP allows security for costs to be modified “at any time” but only where new circumstances have arisen that were neither present nor foreseeable when the original order was made. Common litigation developments – such as a counterclaim for revocation or a responsive patent…
3 min Reading time→ -
Paris Local Division, June 5, 2026, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_684/2025
New arguments submitted late in the proceedings may be disregarded to uphold the front-loaded procedure (R. 9.2 RoP): The court has the discretion to declare inadmissible new non-infringement arguments and evidence that a defendant introduces for the first time in its Rejoinder. Defendants must present all grounds for non-infringement in their initial Statement of Defence…
3 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→ -
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→ -
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→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.