Topics: provisional measures
-
Court of Appeal, March 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_898/2025
Asserting a patent in a non-registered claim version is not categorically excluded in provisional measures proceedings; admissibility depends on the circumstances of each case (R. 211.2 RoP).: There is no automatic additional burden on the Appellee from assertion of a non-registered version. Whether the specific version is suitable for provisional measures is a case-by-case determination.…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 18, 2026, suspensive effect, UPC_CoA_19/2026
Applications for suspensive effect against interim cost awards are admissible in provisional measures cases: The Court clarified that the prohibition on suspensive effect in R. 223.5 RoP does not apply to appeals against interim cost awards (R. 220.1(c) RoP), which are considered orders under Art. 62 UPCA. Suspensive effect is an exception granted only (i)…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Paris, November 21, 2025, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_697-2025
Clarification of “Unreasonable Delay” under Rule 211.4 RoP: The LD Paris clarifies that the relevant moment for assessing delay is the point in time when the applicant knew or should have known about the upcoming infringing act – not when infringement has already occurred, thereby aligning with other UPC case law (cf. UPC CoA ORD_44387/2024,…
3 min Reading time→ -
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 The Hague, October 22, 2025, provisional measures, UPC_CFI_587/2025
The need for a certain amount of time to assess infringement does not generally constitute an unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures (R. 211.4 RoP): In March 2025, the extent to which the claims would be upheld was decided in the oral hearing of the opposition proceedings before the EPO. The Proprietor then purchased the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, May 12, 2025, order on appeal against order for security of costs, especially when the action has become devoid of purpose, UPC_CoA_328/2024
Admissibility of Appeals: An appeal against an order for security of costs, brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures remains admissible, even if the request has become devoid of purpose (here because the appellant has later made it clear that it no longer requests provisional measures). The appellant retains a legal…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, April 4, 2025, cost decision in PI proceedings, UPC_CFI_697/2024
Cost decision following an order rejecting a preliminary injunction: A decision on costs is possible following an order rejecting an application for a preliminary injunction (PI), although the strict wording of R. 150 et seq. RoP provide for a decision on costs only following a decision on the merits. Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA provides for…
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→ -
LD Munich, March 11, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_201/2024
Timely lodging of statement of claim upon order of provisional measures: payment of court fees relevant (not timing of receipt): The applicant of provisional measures has to “start proceedings on the merits” of the case within 31 calendar days (or 20 working days, whichever is longer) from the date specified in the Court’s order (R.…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, March 3, 2025, Order, UPC_CoA_523/2024
Price erosion is an important factor to be considered when evaluating the necessity of provisional measures. : A move from a market situation where only one product is available, to one where there are two competing products, can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion. This risk…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, September 25, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_182/2024
Background and first instance decision: This decision relates to an appeal regarding a decision on provisional measures and, in particular, answers the question whether submissions from the main proceedings (and related counterclaim for revocation) are to be considered during the appeal stage of provisional measures. The first instance had issued a preliminary injunction in ex…
7 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 6, 2024, order of the court of first instance, UPC_CFI_165/2024 and UPC_CFI_166/2024
Existence of infringement is assessed on the basis of UPC law without recourse to national patent law: Art. 25 UPCA (right to prevent the direct use of the invention) constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA (provisional and protective measures) uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws so that these…
11 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, August 27, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CFI_74/2024
Direct infringement of a device claim : In certain cases, there could be a direct infringement of a device claim if the patent infringer appropriates the actions of its customer in the sense of an “extended workbench” (in German: “verlängerte Werkbank”) and it would be unreasonable to hold the infringer liable only for indirect patent…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, February 26, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_335/2023
The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of an EP under Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC: The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely on the strict, literal meaning of the…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA Luxembourg, May 13, 2024, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_1/2024
The CoA confirmed its standards for the claim construction as stated in the order of CoA of February 26, 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023: The patent claim is not only the starting point but also a decisive basis for determining the scope of protection of the European Patent. The interpretation of a patent claim does not depend solely…
3 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→ -
LD Düsseldorf, 18 October 2023, order of penalty payment, UPC_CFI_177/2023
The amount of a penalty payment shall be determined (i) to take account of the creditor’s interest in the enforcement of the order not complied with by the debtor, and (ii) to deter the debtor from future violations. The penalty payment shall primarily be determined in view of the debtor and its (past) conduct: If…
5 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.