Topics: withdrawal of opt-out
-
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 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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Munich, April 2, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_18/2025
Opt-out withdrawals must clearly identify the patent but don’t require listing every state where it’s valid: The Court found that listing member states in the withdrawal solely in the context of identifying the proprietor was sufficient. Including states where the patent was granted (Art. 97(1) EPC) but not validated didn’t invalidate the withdrawal. Sufficient infringement…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 18, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_339/2024
Neither the alleged incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law nor the alleged violation of the right to a lawful judge constitutes a valid ground for a preliminary objection.: According to Rule 19.1 RoP, a preliminary objection is strictly limited to the following formal procedural grounds: (a) the jurisdiction and competence of the UPC, (b)…
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→ -
Court of Appeal, November 12, 2024, order concerning the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (Art. 83 UPCA), UPC_CoA_489/2023, UPC_CoA_500/2023
If a patent has been opted out of the jurisdiction of the UPC, this opt-out can only be validly withdrawn, if no action according to Art. 32 UPCA concerning the relevant patent has commenced at a national court since June 1, 2023: The term “action” in Art. 83 UPCA refers not only to infringement and…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Helsinki, Decision of 20 October 2023, UPC_CFI_214/2023
Withdrawal of opt-out ineffective: dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction: An infringement action and a request for provisional measures were filed based on European Patent EP 3 295 663 (EP’663). The LD Helsinki dismissed both due to lack of jurisdiction of the UPC Courts . EP’663 was opted out on May 12, 2023, and the…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.