Application for rehearing (R. 245 RoP, Article 81 UPCA)) rejected as not allowable. The legislator has explicitly chosen that decisions by the Court of Appeal are to be final. The literal wording of Art. 81(1) UPCA makes clear that a rehearing may exceptionally be granted only if the decision suffers from one of these...

Court fees are considered paid on time (R. 371 RoP) if an order to transfer the due amount to the Court’s bank account has been given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading or application, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court’s bank account. This interpretation allows the applicant...

Settlement confirmed by the Court (R. 365.1 RoP). The request for confidentiality from the public under R. 262.2, 365.2 RoP will be decided once a R. 262.1(b) RoP request is made by a member of the public. The confidentiality interests of the parties are protected by the order of the court that only the decision...

The Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the UPC forms an integral part of the UPC and will provide institutional support for resolving patent and related disputes through mediation, arbitration, and other alternative dispute resolution methods. With seats in Ljubljana, Slovenia and Lisbon, Portugal, the...

Proceedings stayed at party request to allow fruitful settlement negotiations which are pending between the parties without the pressure of ongoing proceedings before the UPC (R. 295.d RoP)

Suspensive effect rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP) of appeal against order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, Article 8 Enforcement Directive). The provisions of Art. 67 UPCA mirror those of Article 8 of the Enforcement Directive” which, is designed to ensure a high level of protection in all the Member...

Confidentiality club application dismissed (R. 262A RoP) for information to be communicated  pursuant to a court order (Article 67 UPCA). R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties to the proceedings. Restrictions inherent to the order to provide information on the use of the...

If a time limit provided for in the Rules of Procedure or set by the court has been missed, the party has no option but to apply for re-establishment of the previous status, provided that it is not time limits that cannot be extended (R. 9.3 RoP, R. 320 RoP). The standard of care must be interpreted autonomously (R...

Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation action dismissed by default (Article 65 UPCA, R. 355 RoP). Decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend (R. 355 RoP). Before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural...

Confidentiality club as to information regarding attorney’s fees and expenses incurred. (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). Protection cannot be recognized from the point of view of protecting the law firm about the disclosure of the costs it applies to patent litigation, but only from the point of view of the company...

Security for costs can only be requested by defendants  (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA contains deliberate language to restrict the possibility to request a security order to a defendant. R. 158 RoP cannot be interpreted as merely extending the Court’s powers beyond those explicitly provided in Ar...

Defendants to provide security for the Claimant’s legal costs in the (total) amount of € 75.000 regarding the counterclaim for revocation (Article  69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide for an obligation on the part of the Defendant to provide security.  A Claimant can request a Defendant to...

A decision on cost for provisional measures proceedings must be applied for within one month of service of the decision on the merits (R. 151.1 RoP). If no proceedings on the merits are pending the on month time limit begins with the service of the first instance order for provisional measures. The time limit of R. 151...

Penalty payments because of alleged failure to comply with the terms of a first instance court order, are to be decided by a panel of the Court (instead of a single judge) upon request of the other party or of its own motion (R. 354.4 RoP. The procedure foreseen in R. 264 RoP shall apply (opportunity to be heard). At...

The UPC has competence regarding acts committed before entry into force of the UPCA and during (a withdrawn) opt-out of a patent (Article 32 UPCA, Article 83 UPCA). The wording of Art. 32(1) UPCA does not provide for any temporal limitation of the exclusive co.mpetence of the Court. The option to opt-out is limited to...

Ex parte order to preserve evidence (R. 192 RoP) and order for inspection (R. 199 RoP) (Article 60 UPCA), appointment of independent experts, subject to confidentiality circle, time limits procedure on the merits, € 25.000 security and limited use of the outcome of the measures. Jurisdiction and territorial competence...

IPPT20250529, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Lindal v Rocep-Lusol
Revocation action dismissed; patent maintained as amended by the First Auxiliary request (Article 65 UPCA). Industrial applicability (Article 57 EPC) and insufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC)(Article 138(1(a)(b) EPC). If an (alleged) invention would not comply...

Review of ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspection unsuccessful (R. 197.3 RoP). Sufficient likelihood of infringement: The court currently has no evidence that a Laval nozzle does not allow grain sizes above 50 um. Nor does the respondent explicitly claim this. This circumstance, together with other...

German part of European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). The Unified Patent Court can revoke European patents for one or more individual UPC Member States if so requested (Article 34 UPCA, Article 76 UPCA). No stay until Opposition Division has decided (Article 33(10) UPCA, R. 295 RoP). Claimant's interest in...

IPPT20250523, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of European patent revoked as amended (Article 138(1) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA); infringement claims concerning Poland admissible but dismissed as unfounded. Claim interpretation principles (Article 69 EPC) apply equally to the assessment of...