Topics: injunction
-
IP Insights: Are UPC injunctions subject to proportionality considerations?
▶️ Watch our latest #IP Insights, in which our attorneys-at-law Dr. Anna Giedke and Dr. Tobias Wuttke share our first-hand experience at the UPC. What has previously been a global discussion has now reached the Unified Patent Court. ❓ Is there a disproportionality defense? These are the points to consider: The UPC member states are…
4 min Reading time→UPC Video -
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, July 21, 2025, decision in first instance, UPC_CFI_380/2023
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent: The importance of the patent claims means, inter alia, that a narrowing interpretation of the claims which deviates from the broader general understanding of the terms used therein by the person skilled in…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
UPC Court of Appeal, Order of April 30, 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024
Claim construction principles: The interpretation of a patent claim is a matter of law. Therefore, the Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical…
3 min Reading time→ -
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 Munich, December 18, 2024, withdrawal of opt-out, exhaustion, and FRAND defense, UPC_CFI_9/2023
Withdrawal of opt-out effective if CMS workflow is used: The Court held that Claimant’s withdrawal of the opt-out was effective as Claimant used the online workflow in the Case Management System (CMS) according to Rule 5.7 RoP. It is not mandatory to use the provided template which is merely a non-binding support tool. The withdrawal…
6 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.