Application for rectification of final order dismissed (R. 353 RoP). A decision/order of the Court should be read and interpreted as a whole, the motivational part of the decision/order (grounds) being as much a part of the decision/order as its substantive part (decision).

Costs proceedings suspended until the UPC Court of Appeal has issued a judgment on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated (Article 69 UPCA, Article 74 UPCA, R. 150 RoP, R. 295(c) RoP). The Judge-Rapporteur infers that, as an exception to the general rule (starting position), the stay of cost proceedings is...

Withdrawal of action and reimbursement of court fees (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submissions of a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal and a statement of response, unless a cross-appeal has been lodged. Upon expiry of the period for...

Application by intervener Chainzone for suspensive effect of appeal rejected (R. 223 RoP, R. 315 RoP). It can be left open whether the intervener is entitled to file an application for suspensive effect of the appeal and in particular whether Chainzone has a legal interest in having the enforcement suspended. It can...

The application for leave to appeal against a cost decision is considered to be a Statement of appeal and a statement of grounds for appeal (R. 221 RoP, R. 224 RoP). An application for the determination of costs is a summary procedure, decided in the first instance by the judge-rapporteur (R. 156.2 RoP) and in appeal...

IPPT20250530, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips

A party is adversely affected and allowed to appeal if a request is not fully granted (R. 220.1 RoP). Only the grant of suspensive effect by the Court of Appeal, rather than the mere filing of an application, suspends the enforceability of the decision (Article 74(1) UPCA, R. 223...

€ 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...