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
- Regional Division
- The Hague Local Division
- Vienna Local Division
-
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→ -
LD Paris, March 21, 2025, procedural order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_702/2024
The UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringement of European patents in non-contracting states: Infringement actions can only be brought with respect to countries where the patent is in force, which includes not only countries where a Unitary Patent is in force but also validations of European patents in non-signatory countries. (Art. 24(4) Regulation…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Paris, March 24, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_813/2024
Urgency of filing a request for evidence preservation: The applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim that its patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed. A period of two months (knowledge in October 2024; request in…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 5, 2025, order concerning further exchanges of written pleadings (R. 36 RoP), UPC_CFI_163/2024
Three sucessive stages of the written procedure in infringement actions: The Rules of Procedure devide the written procedure into several successive stages: Stage 1: Pleadings relating to the infringement claim comprising a set of 4 statements Stage 2: Pleadings relating to the validity of the patent-in-suit in the event of a counterclaim for revocation Stage…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, December 19, 2024, Order, UPC_CFI_358/2023
No Stay of Execution from the Court of First Instance: The Court rejected Claimant’s request for a stay of enforcement of its first instance decision during the appeal period as this decision is solely subject to the competence of the Court of Appeal according to Art. 74 UPCA and Rule 223 RoP. In such a…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, December 11, 2024, Decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_395/2023
Headnote 1: Order pursuant to R. 36 RoP does not authorize to raise new grounds; UPC procedure is front-loaded system.: The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some arguments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, August 21, 2024, Procedural order, UPC_CFI_358/2023
Only the arguments according to its written corresponding proceeding are considered : R. 36 RoP allows the parties to request additional written submissions from the judge rapporteur on a reasoned request, in order to ensure that the principles of flexibility and adaptability and the general principle of justice and fairness set out in point 2…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, 24 July 2024, Procedural order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_440/2023
Pendency of an action: The pendency of an action is determined by the date of the registration with the Division concerned – in other words, the pendency of an action is independent on whether or not the defendant has already accepted service of the statement of a claim. Same parties according to Art. 33 (4)…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, July 4, 2024, Decision on the merits in an action for infringement with counterclaim for revocation, UPC_CFI_230/2023
The scope of the dispute brought before the Court is incontestably governed by the principle that the parties define the subject-matter of the dispute, a general principle of law which is reiterated in Art. 76(1) UPCA.: This principle allows the claimant in the main action to exclude certain acts of infringement in order to avoid…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 12, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_425/2023
In case of multiple defendants in an infringement action, it is reasonable for the Judge-Rapporteur to extend the deadline for filing of a Statement of Defence to align the deadlines for all defendants: In the present case, service of the Statement of Claim was delayed for one of the three defendants. According to Rule 23…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 12, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_395/2023
In case of multiple defendants in an infringement action, it is reasonable for the Judge-Rapporteur to extend the deadline for filing of a Statement of Defence to align the deadlines for all defendants: In the present case, service of the Statement of Claim was delayed for some of the fourteen defendants. According to Rule 23…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, April 11, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_4952023
Multiple defendants and competence of the division: In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, May 21, 2024, order concerning security for legal costs, UPC_CFI_495/2023
Claimant’s financial situation is decisive when deciding on security for legal costs: The criterion of the Claimant’s financial situation is decisive for the Court when it has to decide whether or not to order a security for the legal costs. The Applicants (Defendants in the main proceedings) submitted that there are no public records about…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris – May 6, 2024 – UPC_CFI_440/2023 – procedural order
An intervener may not develop claims contrary to those of the party it supports, and may not autonomously develop claims and procedural modalities distinct from those offered to the party it supports.: Consequently, an intervener that has not filed a counterclaim for invalidity within the time limit set for the party they support cannot claim…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 26, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_397/2023
Waiver of Rule 262A RoP: Even though Rule 262A RoP provides that the confidentiality club shall include at least one natural person from each party, the Court considers that it is possible for the parties to exclude access by a natural person by mutual agreement, provided that the principle of a fair trial is not…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 12, 2024, procedural order re. alternative method of service, UPC_CFI_495/2023
Requirements for alternative methods of service: If digital tracking provided by the post office shows that delivery of the Statement of claim (SoC) initiated by the Court could not be carried out, alternative methods of service are possible, R. 275.1 RoP. In the present case, Claimant subsequently suggested three methods of service that appeared to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, 12 February 2024, procedural order on an application for forced intervention, UPC_CFI_440/2023
A defendant, who has a warranty claim against its supplier, can successfully apply for forced intervention of the supplier under R. 316A.1 RoP: SAS LASER COMPONENTS sougth the forced intervention of PHOTON WAVE Co. Ltd, which it designates as the supplier of the allegedly infringing UV LED chips, claiming that if it were to be…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.