Topics: Counterclaim for revocation
-
LD Mannheim, 24 February 2026, Order of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_735/2024, UPC_CFI_224/2025
Functional claim construction; disregarding additional features: The patent is related to an optical device having a specific arrangement of a single input fiber for lighting. The accused embodiment comprises multiple input fibres, but only one of them is used for coupling input laser light; the other fibres are used for other functionalities that do not…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 27, 2026, procedural order, UPC_CFI_344/2025; UPC_CFI_735/2025; PR-UPC-CFI-0000639/2026
One fee for a joint counterclaim in a single action (R. 370.7 RoP): When multiple defendants file a single counterclaim for revocation in the same action only one one value-based fee applies. Separate, later counterclaim requires its own fee (R. 370.7 RoP; Art. 70 UPCA): A defendant served later who files its own counterclaim –…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, December 5, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_414/2024, UPC_CFI_729/2024
Dismissal due to lack of substantiation after contest of facts : Defendants specifically denied that their products’ functionalities in question are incorporated in the source code of the attacked embodiments. Claimant fails to substantiate in more detail, why it is of the opinion, that this is not true or relevant and point to specific facts…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, November 5, 2025, Decision Regarding Infringement and Counterclaim for Revocation, UPC_CFI_461/2024, UPC_CFI_718/2024
The “same invention” test for priority (Art. 87 EPC) equals the standard for added matter, confirming a consistent disclosure standard across the UPC.: The Court confirmed the recent Dusseldorf LD decision (UPC_CFI_115/2024, Decision of 15 October 2025) that for purposes of determining the correct priority date, the same standard applies as for added matter, as…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, October 23, 2025, revocation action, UPC_CFI_497/2024
The Court may limit its review to the “most promising” attacks: A high number of undifferentiated attacks suggests a lack of strategy, and the Court is not required to remedy this by choosing one that suggests greater or lesser success of the attack. Nor is the Court required to establish a hierarchical or conceptual order…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, September 12, 2025, Decision, UPC_CFI_338/2024
Direct infringement when supplying set of components: If the patent-protected product is specifically designed to easily assemble its components at the place of use without the addition of further items, the mere offering or supplying of all components already constitutes a direct patent infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. Direct infringement when supplying…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, August 13, 2025, decision on the merits, UPC_CFI_327/2024
Cost decision on a counterclaim for revocation: If the patent is considered valid only in a form which is not claimed to be infringed, the patentee shall bear the costs of the counterclaim for revocation. However, if the counter claimant seeks revocation of claims not asserted against it, and those claims are upheld, a compensation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 21, 2025, order on harmonization of time periods, UPC_CFI_79/2025
Harmonizing Time Limits in Joint Proceedings: When a counterclaim for revocation (CCR) is filed jointly with a statement of defense, the time limit for responding to the CCR begins only after the claimant receives the substantive content of the CCR. This ensures procedural fairness and alignment between the infringement and revocation proceedings. Division Local Division…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, July 3, 2025, procedural order on security for costs (R. 158 RoP), UPC_CFI_127/2024 et al
Even if the Defendant of an infringement action is, formally, at the same time the Claimant of a counterclaim for revocation, they are entitled to a security also for procedural costs caused by filing the counterclaim for revocation pursuant to Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP.: According to the Court of Appeal’s decision in…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, June 6, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_745/2024 (CCR: UPC_CFI_200/2025)
No special treatment for amendments in counterclaims for revocation: The Rules of Procedure on amendments apply equally to counterclaims for revocation as to infringement actions; no leniency is afforded to counterclaimants. All grounds for revocation and supporting documents must be included with the initial counterclaim. Late-filed prior art faces strict scrutiny: New prior art can…
3 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 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→ -
Milan Local Division, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_181/2025
Joint request for stay of proceedings removes court discretion (Rule 295(d) RoP, Art. 43, 76(1) UPCA): When all parties jointly request a stay, the court must grant it, regardless of the permissive wording in the rule. This upholds party autonomy in determining the subject matter and conduct of their case. Partial stays are permitted for…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, May 8 2025, Decision concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2778423 B1
Background of the case: The Claimant brought an infringement action against the Defendant who filed a Counterclaim for Revocation, alleging a lack of enablement, a lack of novelty, and a lack of inventive step. However, they raised certain novelty and inventive-step objections for the first time in their Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 4, 2025, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_468/2024, UPC_CFI_687/2024
Referral of Counterclaim for Revocation (Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA, R. 37.2 RoP): The Local Division Düsseldorf referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division in Milan. The Parties had unanimously requested the, and requests by all parties will be granted unless strongcounterarguments require a different decision (UPC_CFI 14/2023 (LD Munich), Order of 2 February2024 –…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, March 7, 2025, Decision of Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_459/2023
Late submission of new attacks on validity: The nullity plaintiffs raised two new validity attacks during the oral hearing: a novelty attack based on D7 (Onsemi) and an inventive step attack combining D3 (Nguyen) and D4 (Lürkens). Neither of these new attacks was considered, as they were raised for the first time during the oral…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 31, 2025, Decision of first instance (Infringement Proceedings and Counterclaim for Revocation), UPC_CFI_340/2023
In view of the lack of patentability, the admissible infringement action is unfounded without the need for a judicial review of the infringement allegation required.: After the court has dealt with the interpretation of the patent-in-suit and established the invalidity of the patent-in-suit, it dismissed the infringement action without further ado. Both the examination of…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.