Topics: burden of proof
-
LD Düsseldorf, May 12, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1747/2025
The applicant bears the burden of proof for infringement in provisional measures and must demonstrate with sufficient certainty that infringement is more likely than not (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP): The Court confirmed that the burden of presentation and proof for facts establishing infringement lies with the applicant. It is not the defendant’s primary…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 7, 2026, refusal of provisional measures, UPC_CFI_1927/2025, 1928/2025
Re urgency requirement in case of provisional measures: – Applicant’s burden to present/prove: the gaining of knowledge of the infringing embodiment, the potential infringement, and its prompt verification. – Defendant’s burden to present/prove: the evidence from which it can be inferred that the applicant must have had prior knowledge and from which hesitant conduct can…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, October 31, 2025, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_630/2025
Realization of technical effects and “inferior embodiments”: When an attacked embodiment realizes all structural features of a device claim and the claim does not require the realization of a particular technical effect, the claim is infringed regardless of whether the composition of the structural features in the attacked embodiment achieve a technical effect intended by…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 6, 2025, decision, UPC_CFI_324/2024, UPC_CFI_487/2024
Burden of proof for non-infringement: If the defendant claims that infringement is impossible due to factors outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendant must prove this. The claimant does not need to address such external factors. In the decision, the defendant unsuccessfully argued that infringement was impossible due to the design of existing…
5 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→ -
Central division (Section Munich), Decision in Revocation Action, UPC 1/2023, UPC 14/2023
Claim interpretation: When interpreting a patent claim, the person skilled in the art does not apply a philological understanding, but determines the technical meaning of the terms used with the aid of the description and the drawings. A feature in a patent claim is always to be interpreted in light of the claim as a…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, 26 February 2024, order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023
Claim Construction: The patent claim – to be interpreted from the point of view of a person skilled in the art – is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining theprotective scope of a European patent under Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.