Alleged invalidity of the rules on jurisdiction of Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 71a of the Brussels regulation are a ground for a Preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP). Insofar as a violation of Article 47(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 of the ECHR due to the absence of a Central...

Leave to appeal - request to refer questions to the CJEU denied (R. 221 RoP, Article 21 UPCA). Right to seek a cost decision (Article 69 UPCA) elapses after expiry of the one month time limit (R. 151 RoP). Can only be remedied through reestablishment of rights (R. 320 RoP). UPCA and RoP must be interpreted in a manner...

Request for a provisional injunction and additional measures dismissed. Infringement not more likely than not  (R. 211 RoP). Jurisdiction because of combined/joint threatened infringement by Sinocare and Menarini in UPCA territory of the same patent in the same territory with the same product (Article 7(2) BR). Not in...

Hearing together of two parallel actions based on the same patent concerning the same alleged infringing product (R. 302 RoP) in view of the very similar arguments put forward in defence, and in view of the parallel evidence preservation measures that were carried out and which were the subject of almost identical...

Time period for starting proceedings on the merits following an order to preserve evidence (R. 198.1 RoP). Order of 18 March 2025 changing the start of the time period from 28 February 2025 to the date  on which the expert report will be made available has become final as the order of the judge rapporteur has not been...

Patent amended (Article 65 UPCA), Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Competence in relation to Meril Germany (Article 33.1(a) and (b) UPCA). On the Meril website, Meril Germany is described as Meril’s European Headquarters and the brochure specifies inter alia that Meril Germany can provide information on the...

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...