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...

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...