Topics: auxiliary requests
-
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→ -
Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_898/2025
Asserting a patent in a non-registered claim version is not categorically excluded in provisional measures proceedings; admissibility depends on the circumstances of each case (R. 211.2 RoP).: There is no automatic additional burden on the Appellee from assertion of a non-registered version. Whether the specific version is suitable for provisional measures is a case-by-case determination.…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD The Hague, February 25, 2026, UPC_CFI_620/2025, UPC_CFI_1509/2025, UPC_CFI_1511/2025
A number of 42 auxiliary requests (ARs) in response to e Counterclaim for Revocation may be deemed unreasonable; the court can order the patentee to provide a structured tabular overview for procedural efficiency (Rule 30 RoP).: The court clarified that any further combinations of ARs not included in the claimant’s initial application to amend would…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, February 18, 2026, application to amend, UPC_CFI_616/2025
An amendment to include a new product is permissible, but may be unnecessary if the initial claim for injunctive relief is already broadly worded: The Court found the claimant’s request for relief against infringing products “and/or further versions or variants thereof” was already broad enough to cover the new product. Even if one would consider…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, 7 January 2026, Decision in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_433/2024
An application to substantively amend a patent is only admissible if a full, consolidated set of claims is filed in time with the deadline of the application (R. 30 RoP): The Court cannot redraft claims for a party due to the principle of judicial neutrality. Amendments must be immediately intelligible without subjective reconstruction, ensuring clarity…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 22, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_248/2024
Indications of purpose in a device claim: 1. Indications of purpose in a device claim regularly define a device in such a way that it must be suitable for use for the function and purpose specified in the patent claim. 2. If a device claim contains an indication of purpose, the only factor relevant for…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_471/2023
No equivalent infringement without essentially the same effect : According to all doctrines of equivalence or equivalence tests of the UPC contracting member states, equivalent patent infringement is ruled out if there is no technical-functional equivalence of the substitute means in the sense that the modified means do not perform essentially the same function in…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, April 18, 2025, Generic Order, UPC_CFI_526/2024
Reasonable number of auxiliary requests: To ascertain what constitutes a reasonable number of auxiliary requests, several factors are to be considered: the complexity of the technology involved, the number of prior art documents, the individual validity attacks and the presentation and structure of the auxiliary requests. It is not relevant whether there are multiple proceedings…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, January 17, 2025, decision in first instance on validity, UPC_CFI_316/2023
“Generous standard” with regard to late-filed facts and evidence: While the front-loaded approach of the UPC system requires the parties so submit facts and evidence relied on as early as possible, a generous standard is to be applied with regard to submissions in a Reply to a Statement of Defence. A Claimant is allowed to…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, January 13, 2025, revised order on auxiliary requests, UPC_CFI_298/2023
The number of 55 auxiliary requests can be reasonable: Upon panel review the court views the number of 55 auxiliary requests as exceptionally high but not unreasonable. Considering the extreme complexity of the case (in particular in view of the number of grounds of invalidity raised), the importance of the patent at issue and the…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, November 22, 2024, Application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_400/2024
Examination of the application for provisional measures: In proceedings for provisional measures, the Applicant is required to provide cumulatively reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with a sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; (iii) its rights are being infringed…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, November 5, 2024, Revocation action, UPC_CFI_309/2023
R. 30 (1) (c) RoP does not set out the consequence that all amendments proposed (auxiliary requests) should be dismissed en bloc as not meeting the criterion of being reasonable in number.: Only some of the proposed auxiliary requests may be admitted. The Court can limit a patent by an amendment of the claims and…
7 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, 31 January 2024, Order 103 RoP / 105.5 RoP, UPC_CFI_252/2024
Admissibility of auxiliary requests: Claimant requested to limit the submission of auxiliary requests for the further course of proceedings. The court does not see a legal basis for pre-emptively and categorially ruling out the submission of any further auxiliary requests. Nor does the Court see any legal basis to order the Defendant to make the…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.