Topics: UPC’s ‘front loaded’ procedural system
-
CD Munich, April 8, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_280/2025
A realistic starting point in the same technical field does not automatically render the claimed invention obvious (Art. 56 EPC, Art. 65(1)–(2) UPCA).: Even if prior art qualifies as a realistic starting point, it remains relevant for the inventive step assessment that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, January 15, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_100/2024; UPC_CFI_411/2024
For revocation actions, the registered proprietor is the correct defendant (R. 8.6, R. 42.1 RoP), prioritizing legal certainty over actual entitlement.: The law ensures a party seeking revocation does not bear the burden of investigating true entitlement but can rely on the national patent register. Entitlement disputes generally do not shift this, preserving legal certainty…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
Court of Appeal, December 29, 2025, decision on revocation action, UPC_CoA_71/2025
Accuracy of translation to be checked at an early stage: The Appellant argued that a translation of a Korean prior art document filed by the Respondent in first instance was incorrect and at best inaccurate and filed own translations on appeal. The CoA holds that these translations are late filed and shall be disregarded. Given…
9 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→ -
CD Paris, November 27, 2024, Decision concerning the revocation action No. ACT_571565/2023, UPC_CFI_308/2023
Background of the case: The Claimant filed a revocation action against the patent at issue based on a lack of inventive step. On 11 December 2023, the Defendant submitted the defence to revocation including a conditional application to amend the patent based on different amendments and consisting of 35 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced…
6 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.