Restrictions on access to and use of information by a party and its representatives may only be subject to restrictions in accordance with R. 262A RoP. An application under Rule 262.2 RoP does not automatically grant provisional protection against the disclosure of information by the other party. A party's written...

Appeal ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises rejected (R. 194 RoP, R. 196 RoP). When examining an Application for preserving evidence, the Court exercises its discretion by taking into account the urgency of the action (R. 194.2(a) RoP) in order to determine whether, and to what extent, it wishes to...

The concept of ‘average consumer’ does not exclude the possibility that an individual’s decision-making capacity may be impaired by constraints: Reasonably well-informed nature does not exclude the possibility that a commercial practice may materially distort the economic behaviour of the notional consumer. Also not...

No suspensive effect for appeal against preliminary injunction (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). It is not apparent from OTEC’s submissions that OTEC was prevented at the oral hearing from also making statements on infringement and validity and within the time frame granted (see R.113.1 RoP). Certain of OTEC’s statements...

Security for costs granted against claimant residing in China (Art. 69(4) UPCA, R.158 RoP). The lack of experience in enforcing UPC cost decisions in China, does not rule out the possibility that enforcement will be burdensome. The fact that China is outside the EU is a relevant factor. A history of litigants having...

Provisions on fair compensation for reprography and private copying (Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Copyright Directive) have direct effect, allowing individuals, in the event of an incorrect transposition, to rely directly on that provision to prevent the application of national rules requiring them to pay...

Only one US attorney granted access to the confidential information (R. 262A RoP). NST has not demonstrated that it is necessary to grant access to more than one trusted US attorney to serve as a link between NST and the UPC representatives. This access does not imply that information can be cross-used.

Late filed application to be registered as representative on the basis of “other qualifications” under Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules after the expiry of the one year transition period denied (Article 48(2) UPCA). A re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP is not possible because the RoP are not applicable to the EPLC...

Further written pleadings allowed in appeal of granted PI (R.36 RoP) with respect to the new experiment performed by STEROS regarding the alleged embodiment of the patent in dispute and the argumentation relating to the same under para. 50 to 65 of the Statement of Response of 15 July 2025. Under R. 36 RoP it is...

The UPC announces the setting up of a third panel of the UPC’s Court of Appeal (CoA) as of January 2026. Following a steady rise of the UPC’s caseload and a proportional rise of cases at the CoA, a third panel of the CoA will be set up as of January 2026.

The CoA’s third panel will be composed of Ms Ulrike Voß...

Early decision taken to have joint hearing for infringement and revocation (R. 37.2 RoP and Art. 33(3) UPCA). In the interest of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent it was decided that bifurcation was not in the best interests of the parties

A challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant’s first submission cannot be considered to be acceptance of the jurisdiction of the courts seised [Article 26 Brussels I recast Regulation]. When the defendant is domiciled in an EU member state actions for declaration of non-infringement...

The Trade Mark Directive does not seek to harmonise at EU Level the national laws relating to trade names, a category to which a company name may belong: in the absence of harmonisation, the protection of trade names is a matter for national law. The Trade Mark Directive and the free movement of goods do not preclude a...

“Offer” within the meaning of Article 25(a) UPCA is to be understood in the economic sense and is not based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. “Infringer”: the mere position of managing director does not make the managing director and accomplice or accessory to a patent infringement by the...

Withdrawal of application for costs allowed without hearing Belkin (R. 265 RoP). Even without the withdrawal, no decision on the merits would have been issued, as the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction for applications for the determination of costs. No decision on costs is required here. As a rule, even the...

Impugned order revoked and decision by default dismissing the infringement action given against Suinno for failure to provide security for costs (R. 355.2 RoP, R. 158.5 RoP). Decision by default of R. 355.2 RoP only applies when a decision by default is sought "against the defendant of the claim". It does not apply...

Central Division has not exceeded the boundaries of its discretion in setting the amount of the security equal to 50% of the ceiling, meaning at € 300,000 (R. 158 RoP). Suinno's argument that the security for costs is "not commensurate with the real work it takes to communicate non-infringement or lack of validity to...

Preliminary injunction, seizure and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA)). Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement (R. 210(3) RoP, R. 116 RoP, R. 355 RoP). Pursuant to R. 210(3) RoP, Rules 111 to 116 of the Rules of...

Patent upheld in limited form (Article 65 UPCA). Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA): not all features of claim 1 are realised by the contested embodiments. Reasonable number of auxiliary requests (twice 33) (R. 30.1(c) RoP) because the actual core of the auxiliary requests is small, the opposing party is...

Infosoc Directive 2001/29 and Rental Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the assignment, by means of a regulatory act, for the purpose of exploitation by the employer, of the related rights of performers engaged under an administrative law statute, without the...