Access to register after decision (R. 262 RoP) . Written pleadings or evidence that were not yet in the casefile at the time when the request for access was made, but were added to the casefile before a party commented on the request, can be covered by a decision granting access, provided that the request made clear...

Appeal against an order rejecting the production of evidence devoid of purpose after withdrawal of infringement action and proceedings are closed  (R. 360 RoP,, Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). An appeal is devoid of purpose if there is no longer any reason to decide on it. As a result, the appeal has become devoid of...

Suspensive effect for an appeal is the exception to the rule as is shown by these three decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal in two days in April.

Suspensive effect appeal rejected (Article 74 UPCA). Kodak has failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations which prove to be untenable already on the basis of a summary assessment. Incorrect understanding...

Direct infringement of non-lapsed German part of European patent (Article 25 UPCA). No jurisdiction UPC over national parts of a European patent, which have already lapsed in a UPCA member stat or a non-UPCA-member state before 1 June 2023 (Article 3(c) UPCA, Article 32 UPCA). 

Direct patent infringement within the territory of the UPCA member states by acts outside that territory (Article 25 UPCA): acts in the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA also encompass acts which make the infringement possible and support it, at least when such acts give the potential perpetrator control over the infringement. I...

Separation of proceedings ordered (R. 302 RoP) between national parts of European bundle patent ready for decision and the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, which are not ready for decision yet: a fundamental question of European Law concerning the international...

Rieter CZ is the holder of EP3118356 for a method of safely starting or stopping a rotor in a rotor spinning machine. Opponent Saurer challenged the validity of the patent. Although the Opposition Division maintained the patent in amended form, Saurer appealed. The Technical Board held that answers from LLMs such as...

Order to preserve evidence and inspect premises has become devoid of purpose due to Swarco Futurit’s factual assertation being undisputed by Yunex (Article 60 UPCA, R. 360 RoP). The proceedings to secure evidence are a dependent part of the main proceedings. In the subsequent main proceedings, Yunex is precluded from...

Ex parte anti-anti-suit-injunction (Article 62(5) UPCA). Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions violate the rights to justice; they constitute unlawful interference with the applicant's property-like right (Munich Local Chamber, order of 9 December 2024, CFI_755/2024 – Avago/Realtek). Imminent infringement of a...

 The indirect and direct infringement action is unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). The indirect patent infringement of claim 1 of the patent in suit alleged by the plaintiff pursuant to Art. 26 (1) UPCA does not exist. In any case, there is no literal realisation of feature 1. b) and feature group 1. c) aa...

That general prohibition applies until the Commission has completed its examination of those claims and has included them in the lists of authorised health claims, unless their use is already permitted under a transitional regime.

Since Denmark and Portugal failed, by the deadline set in the reasoned opinion of the European Commission dated 19 May 2022, to adopt the legislative, regulatory, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/790 (the DSM Directive), and Bulgaria failed to comply with Directive 2019/789 (on...

Demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed as the capture of data is one of the Applicant’s targets and it is generally accepted that digital data can be easily hidden or erased if previous notice is given of this kind of application, as is also mentioned above. Mammoet’s fear that evidence can easily be removed if...

Application to grant suspensive effect for appeal of cost order up to the applicable ceiling of € 112.000 in order dismissing provisional measures rejected (Article 74 UPCA). The risks of problems of enforcement put forward by Barco are not such as to make the appeal devoid of purpose absent suspensive effect (ICPillar...

Provisional measures dismissed based on lack of urgency (R. 209(2)(b) RoP). If an infringement action was lodged immediately this would have led – in view of the one-year proceedings before the UPC – to a decision before the summer 2025. 2 ½ months delay in the filing of the request for provisional measures after...

Application for public access to allowed after the main proceeding was withdrawn and the proceedings have thus come to an end (R. 262 RoP). Accord has not objected to the request, and Novartis agreed to the request for access to documents, there is no reason to deny access to the requested documents. Moreover, Novartis...

R. 263 RoP requires that the application shall explain why a requested change or amendment of case was not included in the original pleading. This means that the reasoning must be included in the application. It does not prohibit that the precise wording of the requested amendment is set out in one or more annexes...

Proceedings for costs incurred (€ 337.431,50) following appeal in summary proceedings (Article 69 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 151 RoP). Application for a cost decision admissible following a decision on costs (R. 242.1 RoP) by the Court of Appeal in proceedings for interim measures (summary proceedings). Application filed in...

Patent valid but not infringed. New validity attacks raised during the oral proceedings not taken into consideration. If considered as an amendment of claim, the attacks should have been raised at the latest in the reply to the counterclaim ((R. 263 RoP). If considered as additional argumentation for the annulment of...