Topics: Preliminary Objection
-
LD Paris, March 23, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA does not require a direct commercial link between the “anchor defendant” and each of the other defendants, but only a commercial link between all the defendants: The commercial link is assessed flexibly to avoid multiplying parallel proceedings and the risk of contradictory decisions. This applies in particular in cases where all defendants…
4 min Reading time→ -
CD Munich, March 24, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_2296/2025
The list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 RoP is exhaustive and cannot be extended to other defences such as lack of standing to sue or res judicata: The court confirmed, in line with the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Aylo v. DISH/SLING (UPC_CoA_188/2024) and Roku/Sun (UPC_CoA_288/2025), that Rule 19.1 RoP only permits objections on…
3 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
CoA, March 16, 2026, Order concerning a Preliminary Objection, UPC_CoA_904/2025, UPC_CoA_905/2025
A preliminary objection may also be deferred to the main proceedings by the panel, not only by the judge-rapporteur: The Court of Appeal clarifies that a decision under R. 20.2 RoP to deal with a preliminary objection in the main proceedings is not reserved to the judge-rapporteur alone. Where the matter has been referred to…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, March 3, 2026, infringement and validity, UPC_CFI_43/2025, UPC_CFI_103/2025
Jurisdiction is affirmed if no preliminary objection is filed (Rule 19.7 RoP).: The defendants, including a US-based defendant, did not file a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP and were therefore deemed to have submitted to the UPC’s jurisdiction. Claim construction (Art. 69 EPC) takes into account function; optional embodiments in the description do not…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 11, 2026, infringement and validity decision, UPC_CFI_351/2024
If a defendant has used its own website to create the impression that there has been no patentinfringement, it may be justified under Art. 80 UPCA to not only allow the claimant to publish theCourt’s decision, but also to require the defendant to publish the operative part of the decision onits website: The decision whether…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, February 12, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_575/2025
According to Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(1) and (2) and Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast regulation the UPC has international jurisdiction over a non-EU defendant if infringing acts are sufficiently alleged in a Contracting Member State: The Court has an ex officio duty under Art. 28 Brussels I recast reegulation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, February 17, 2026, preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_1963/2025
The “same alleged infringement” condition under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA requires infringement of the same patent, not that all defendants infringe with identical products: This flexible interpretation avoids procedural fragmentation. The question of which defendant is involved with which specific product is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary jurisdictional issue. The “commercial relationship” condition…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 31, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_755/2025 & UPC_CoA_757/2025
A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.: The Court of Appeal denied the appliant’s request to apply R. 21.2 RoP (stay of the proceedings if an appeal is lodged), as the only existing appeal concerned a different matter (confidentiality) and no appeal on the preliminary objection existed. The…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 6, 2025, Decision regarding rejection of Preliminary Objections in Infringement Actions, UPC_CoA_288/2025, UPC_CoA_290/2025, UPC_CoA_291/2025
A preliminary objection to jurisdiction under Rule 19.1(a) RoP can include challenging the validity of the UPCA’s jurisdictional provisions themselves, such as Articles 31 and 32 UPCA.: The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 19.1(a) RoP covers not only factual or procedural jurisdiction disputes but also legal challenges to the validity of the jurisdiction-conferring norms…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, June 20, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_149/2024, UPC_CFI_127/2024
In the case of service outside the UPCA Contracting Member States, preliminary objections must be filed within one month of the actual date of service.: R. 271.6 (b) RoP stating that a statement of claim shall in general be deemed to be served on the addressee on the tenth day following posting does not apply…
4 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_156/2025
UPC competence is not temporally limited (Art. 32(1) UPCA).: The Court’s jurisdiction extends to acts of infringement before the UPCA’s entry into force, provided the patent is within the UPC’s competence at the time of action. The absence of a temporal limitation in Art. 32(1) UPCA aligns with the UPCA’s objective to unify patent litigation…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, May 23, 2025, Order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI191/2025 and 192/2025
International jurisdiction by anchor defendant.: Pursuant to Art. 8(1) Brussels ibis Regulation (BR), a person domiciled in an EU Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled. In the present case, the judge rapporteur held it…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 17, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_846/2024
A preliminary objection may relate to a part of an infringement action only: Defendants’ objection to the UPC’s jurisdiction over acts commited prior to the start of the UPC is admissible. Possible UPC jurisdiction on infringing actions solely occurred before June 1, 2023: Defendant states in its preliminary objection that one attacked embodiment was only…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 4, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_750/2024
Questions of fact and law relevant to jurisdiction and to the merits of the case are not dealt with in the preliminary objection procedure according to R. 19.1 RoP: Questions of fact and law that are relevant both to jurisdiction of the UPCA and to the merits of the case are, in principle, not to…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 2, 2025, order on Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_819/2024
Multiple Defendants may be sued in one action provided that the infringement has occured in the CMS hosting the Local Division, irrespective of a “commercial relationship”: Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 21, 2025, procedural order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_702/2024
The UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringement of European patents in non-contracting states: Infringement actions can only be brought with respect to countries where the patent is in force, which includes not only countries where a Unitary Patent is in force but also validations of European patents in non-signatory countries. (Art. 24(4) Regulation…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, March 21, 2025, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_582/2024
Rule 19.1(b) RoP does not apply to objections to provisional measures due to their expedited nature : The preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19.(b) RoP relates to proceedings on the merits. This is based on procedural economy and the (extended) timeframe within which theparties in infringement actions, revocation actions and actions for declaration of non-infringement…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.