Revocation dismissed, maintained as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Inadmissible newly raised arguments for lack of novelty of the independent claims and added subject-matter in the dependent claims (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The newly raised arguments do not follow the defence and there are no objective obstacles to their...

Application to postpone the date of the oral hearing for interim measures not granted (R. 210 RoP, R. 9 RoP). Due to the urgent nature of the hearing of an application for interim measures, a postponement can only be considered in very special circumstances. This does not automatically include the absence of the...

Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pursuant to settlement (R. 265.1 RoP). Only 40% instead of 60% reimbursement of Court fees (€ 30.400 and € 8.000, respectively) due to the parties having conducted the proceedings outstanding intensively. (R. 370.9(e) RoP). Application for compensation...

Succesfull appeal: preliminary injunction granted because of imminent infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP). In the context of marketing of generics, the mere application for a marketing authorisation by a generics company does not amount to an imminent infringement, nor does the grant of such an authorisation...

Application for leave to change the claim rejected (R. 263 RoP). An application must explain why such change was not included in the original pleading. Leave shall not be granted if, all circumstances considered, the party seeking the amendment cannot satisfy the Court that (a) the amendment in question could not have...

Undisputed extension for submission Statement of response as Cisco did not have access to the unredacted version of the appeal when it filed its statement of appeal (R. 262A RoP, R. 235 RoP). Extension limited to only two weeks since the information concerned is a relatively small portion of the grounds of appeal.

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...