The UPC has competence regarding acts committed before entry into force of the UPCA and during (a withdrawn) opt-out of a patent (Article 32 UPCA, Article 83 UPCA).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...

Procedural order on preliminary objections (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP). The PO’s filed on 24 April 2025 (…) on behalf of Moderna Belgium, Moderna Germany and Poland, are not admissible for these defendants (for Moderna Poland this only applies to action 192/25), as they are late filed and these defendants are therefore...

Panel review confirms case management order not to allow a further exchange of written pleadings (R. 12.5 RoP, R. 36 RoP, R. 333 RoP). A request pursuant to R. 36, 12.5 RoP calls for a sufficient degree of substantiation so that the judge-rapporteur can retrieve the essential facts from the application itself without...

No security for costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). Also the claimant is permitted to submit a request for security for costs, as this rule does not restrict such actions to a defendant only. It is sufficient for a defendant to establish that enforcement of a cost order is unduly burdensome. The burden of showing this...

Patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA): lack of novelty (claim 8) and lack of inventive step: the skilled person, looking to improve D3 to provide a more reliable ball contact detection, would have looked in the literature of games and sports how to increase the reliability of the detection, including D2, which belongs to...

No need to adjudicate because of settlement (R. 360 RoP), costs to be borne by respondent (R. 118.5 RoP). Giving cause for the action to be brought and requirement of a warning letter? If the obligation to bear the costs in a decision pursuant to Rule 360 RoP depends on whether the defendant gave cause for the action...

No bifurcation despite pending revocation action before the Paris Central Division (Article 33(3) UPCA, R. 37 RoP). As both parties voted against bifurcation, the panel has decided to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. Furthermore, Belparts informed the court that the counter...

The final decision on whether to grant leave to amend the case to the effect that the infringement action also covers the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment postponed until the oral hearing because it may depend on claim interpretation (R. 263 RoP). Whether the new explicitly attacked embodiments have the same...

Confidentiality and confidentiality club (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262 RoP, R. 262A RoP, Article 9 Trade Secrets Directive). Whether Rule 262A VerfO also covers the situation where (without a restriction on access being imposed on one party) the parties to the proceedings are required to treat confidential information as...

Second medical use claims: both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Both claimants have standing to sue as respectively patent proprietor and exclusive licensee (Article 47 UPCA). Objections based on pleading ignorance are in principle disregarded (R. 171.2...

Cost decision (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156 RoP, ): € 77.064 (instead of requested € 136.756.) The maximum limit, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, can only be reached in limited situations, for example due to the complexity of the issues involved, the number of patents examined, the parties involved or...

Case management judge-rapporteur deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved (R. 332(d) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur decides to refer all pending requests to the panel for decision after the main oral hearing. The Judge-Rapporteur does not see any possibility of disposing of the entire case immediately. Since...

Extension of time period for the Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of defence, the Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation and an Application to amend the patent until 19 May 2025 since access to unredacted version of the Statement of defence was delayed because of setting up of confidentiality club regime (R. 29...

Provisional measures rejected; no imminent infringement (Article 62(1) UPCA). Imminent infringement (Article 62(1) UPCA). The UPC must assess imminent infringement independently, solely based on the interpretation of the UPCA, and not on national legislation. In that regard, the Court must evaluate the risk of...

Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA) and valid (Article 65 UPCA). Claim interpretation of “Umschalten" (Article 69 EPC). The fact that the contested patent is also based on this understanding is already clear from the English version of the patent claim (which is not decisive for the scope of protection, however). Enabli...