Topics: Decision by default
-
Court of Appeal, February 24, 2026, decision, UPC_CoA_883/2025; UPC_CoA_892/2025
Rehearing is an exceptional remedy; only fundamental, outcome‑determinative procedural defects justify reopening final appeal decisions (Art. 81(1) UPCA; R. 245, 247 RoP): The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung. Especially, it is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, January 16, 2026, Order regarding application for suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_000935/2025
The CoA grants the application for suspensive effect only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect.: An appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties (Art. 74.1 UPCA). It must…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CD Paris, January 12, 2026, Decision by default, UPC_CFI_350/2025
A default decision under R. 355 RoP can be granted if a defendant, properly served under R. 274 and R. 277 RoP, fails to act within the R. 49 RoP time limit: The Court exercises its discretion to issue the default decision, emphasizing the claimant’s right to an expeditious procedure. The defendant was served in the USA via…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_515_2025
No Default Decision Despite Non-Response: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court has discretion to inform the defendant of an application for provisional measures and to invite an objection within a specified time limit. If the defendant fails to lodge or substantiate such an objection, as occurred in this case, the Court may decide the application…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, October 21, 2025, decision by default, UPC_CFI_499/2024, ACT_48877/2024
Decision by default: According to R. 355.2 RoP, a decision by default against the defendant may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude to give such decision. In view of this, LD The Hague stated that it…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, October 17, 2025, Order in the proceedings for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_515/2025
Regular order in the PI proceedings (no decision by default) if the defendant does not lodge an objection within the deadline set by the Court: The Court may issue a regular order for provisional measures based on the application for provisional measures, rather than a decision by default, when a defendant chooses not to lodge…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_449/2025
The application for a default decision merely supplements, but does not replace, the main application for a PI and other provisional measures: Under R. 209.1(a) RoP, the Court notifies the defendant of an application for provisional measures and invite objections. If the defendant does not respond or declines to substantiate objections, the Court may decide…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, August 5, 2025, Default Judgment, UPC_CFI_318/2025
Default judgment is available if the defendant fails to respond (R. 355 RoP, R. 23 RoP): The court may issue a default judgment if the defendant does not file a statement of defense within the prescribed period, provided service of the complaint was validly effected. Service at trade fair booths is valid for UPC proceedings…
3 min Reading time→ -
CD Milan, July 22, 2025, decision by default on the revocation action, UPC_CFI_597/2024
Default Judgment on Revocation: Failure to comply with a court order (Rule 158 RoP) for security for costs can result in the dismissal of a revocation action by default (Rule 355.2 RoP), especially when the opposing party requests it. Non-compliance with a legally issued order and a request by a party are prerequisites for a…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Limited Scope of Rectification Under Rule 353 RoP: Rectification under Rule 353 RoP is limited to obvious errors (clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, obvious slips) evident from the decision’s reasoning – in other words, a discrepancy between the judge’s intended decision and its material representation, provided that this can be deduced from a comparison between…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, September 16, 2024, decision by default in revocation action, UPC_CFI_412/2023
Requirements of a decision by default: Pursuant to Rule 355 RoP a decision by default against the defendant may be granted where: i) the relevant request is submitted by the claimant; ii) the defendant fails to take a step within the time limit foreseen in the Rules of Procedure or set by the Court, or…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, April 11, 2024, request for a decision by default, UPC_CoA_79/2024
Time period for filing a statement of appeal under R.220.2 RoP: If an appeal is lodged under R.220.2 RoP and leave is granted in the impugned order itself, the statement of appeal must be lodged within 15 days of service of that order containing the decision to grant leave (R.224.1(b) RoP). If the decision to…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.