€ 100.000+ penalty imposed upon Defendants (Article 82 UPCA, R. 354 RoP) to punish their shortcomings and disobedience with the operative part of the decision of the UPC Claimant seeks to enforce and to coerce Defendants to comply with what had been ordered by the Court. The penalty regime imposed is three-pronged. For...

Infringement action dismissed for lack of patentability of UK part of European bundle patent (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Reference is made to the decision of 2 April 2025. Infringement action exclusively governed by procedural law of the forum, in accordance with fundamental principles of international...

Direct and indirect infringement in the UK by German defendants (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). Infringement action exclusively governed by procedural law of the forum, in accordance with fundamental principles of international procedural law. Cross border jurisdiction UPC (Article 4 Brussels I Regulation, Article...

Confidentiality club regime request for information to be provided in enforcement proceedings rejected (R. 262A RoP). First, it would have been for the defendants to already submit in the main proceedings that any information they would have to render in case of the court finding for infringement should be subject to...

Panel rejects request to review rejection by judge-rapporteur of request to issue a penalty warning letter (R. 354 RoP, R. 333 RoP)). The panel did not - in the main decision - fix time periods for the fulfilment of operative parts B.III, B.IV. and B.V. and also did not decide on amounts of penalty up-front. All...

Exchange of members of confidentiality club allowed only in part (R. 262A RoP). Claimant itself decided to relocate the concerned three members internally without ensuring that they could continue to work on the case, at least on a secondary basis. Claimant did not explain why such an arrangement was not possible. An...

Both infringement action (Article 25 UPCA) and counterclaim for revocation (Article 65 UPCA) dismissed. Counterclaim for revocation may attack the patent in its entirety, even though single claims are not a part of the infringement request (Article 32(1)(e) UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). P...

Withdrawal of (i) infringement action against and (ii) counterclaim for revocation by defendant Digital River’s, which is in insolvency proceedings (R. 265 RoP, R. 311 RoP). The Court finds that the principles of fairness and equity require that both Ericsson and Digital River bear their own costs in relation to these...

Confidentiality club as agreed by parties: external eyes only request rejected (Article 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP). In the opinion of the Court, it is therefore possible to order the adoption of an “external eyes only” regime, at least in cases where there is an actual and proven risk of conflict between the patent system...

IPPT20250617, UPC CoA, Knaus Tabbert v Yellow Sphere

Inadmissible application (“Gegenvorstellung”) based on R. 9.1 RoP regarding the Court of Appeal’s order of 21 may 2025 in which the application for suspensive effect of the appeal against the impugned order was rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP). This provision...

Unsuccessful application for suspensive effect of appeal (Article 74(1) UPCA, R. 223 RoP). The application for suspensive effect must on its own, enable the appeal court to decide on the application, if necessary without further information. References to passages in written pleadings and documents in the first...

Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation dismissed: permanent injunction (Article 63(1) UPCA), provision of information (Article 67 UPCA), and corrective measures (Article 64 UPCA): recall, removing the product from channels of commerce , destruction (Article 64(2)(e) UPCA), Provisional damages of € 100...

Interpretation of G 1/92, about the enablement requirement for products put on the market for forming part of the state of the art within the meaning of Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC). The Technical Board of Appeal  (T-0438/19). referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Case T 0070/23 concerns a patent EP 2 903 638 held by GSK relating to an "immunogenic composition", which is a cocktail of conjugated capsular saccharides from Streptococcus agalactiae (GBS). The patent holder (GSK) argued that the product claim, while not explicitly mentioning therapeutic efficacy, should be...

Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA) does not require the claimant to prove that the defendant was previously aware of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement. Territoriality of the acts infringement (Article 34 UPCA, R. 13.1(m) RoP, R. 171.1 RoP); only in France - no evidence of...

Reasonable and proportionate legal costs (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). That several lawyers from the same law firm were acting on behalf of the plaintiff does not preclude the necessity and appropriateness of the costs. Infringement analyses carried out in the run-up to the summary proceedings served to prepare for...

An order to preserve evidence and conduct an inspection may serve to secure evidence of individual acts of use (Article 60 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA).The list of measures for preserving evidence of R. 196. RoP is not exhaustive (Article 60(2) UPCA). The specific measures required must always be decided in light of the...

No further exchange of written pleadings after CoA decision of 30 April 2025 in PI proceedings (R. 36 RoP). The parties have fully argued their respective positions at both the preliminary and the substantive stages of the proceedings and their positions have been well examined, sometimes even repeatedly. Instructions...

Rejected suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) and expedition of appeal (R. 9.3(b) RoP) of order to provide security in the amount € 200,000 by 6 June 2025. Appeal not devoid of purpose without suspensive effect, no undue burden (R. 223 RoP) If Chint provides the security and the impugned order is subsequently revoked by the...

UPC Milan Local Division has “universal” jurisdiction regarding defendant domiciled in Italy (Article 32 UPCA, Article 4(1) EU Regulation Brussels Recast and amended by Reg. n. 542/2014. If it is a Court of domicile, the UPC has competence to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents validated in...