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...

IPPT20250514, UPC CoA, Hisense v Corning
Request dismissed for discretionary review in appeal of panel confirmation of order of the judge-rapporteur not to separate proceedings against unrelated defendants (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 303.2 RoP). It is at the discretion of the court to separate proceedings. The Court must consider...

Admissible appeal against security for costs order brought together with the appeal against the order on provisional measures (R. 220.2 RoP). “Decision” in R. 220.2 RoP also includes “orders” so that an appeal against a security order is admissible when brought together with an appeal against an order where an action...

Change of language in appeal of limited scope from Danish to English with the agreement of the parties (Article 49(4) UPCA, R. 322 RoP). No translation of pleadings and evidence 

Impugned order granting access to pleadings and evidence (R. 262 RoP) to parties who are not represented set aside as it would compromise the representation requirement (R. 8.1 RoP). Due to inadmissible self-representation, the formal requirements for lodging a Statement of response have not been met (R. 235 RoP). A...

Same alleged infringement (Article 33(1)(b) UPCA).In the context of a European patent without unitary effect, the term "the same infringement" addresses situations where multiple defendants are accused of infringing the relevant national designations of the same European patent by the same product or process. Inventive...

Inadmissible preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP): the validity of the withdrawal of the opt-out does not constitute an admissible ground for a preliminary objection (Article 83 UPCA). Material ownership of the patent-in-suit is to be dealt with in the main proceedings (R. 20.2 RoP). Unfounded preliminary objection with...

Request to stay proceedings rejected (R. 295 RoP). No obligation to sue OEMs and suppliers in one proceeding. Rather it is common practice, which is not counter to any procedural rights of a defendant, to initiate proceedings against different parties separately, especially under circumstances, where the service of a...

Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP). No opt-out applies: withdrawal of opt-out (Exhibit CRPO-1) identifies the opted-out patent. Sufficiently shown the infringement (actual and threatened) of the Patent in the statement of claim. The contested embodiment (...) and acts of infringement (...) are clearly...

Security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP). The sole reference to the past difficulties of service under the Hague Service Convention in Germany as a member state does not provide sufficient reasons. As long as the Defendants’ have not provided any well-reasoned facts that a decision on cost by the...

Claim interpretation is a matter of law (Article 69 EPC). The Court cannot leave the judicial task of interpreting the patent claim to an expert but has to construe the claim independently. The skilled person is a notional entity that cannot be equated with any real person in the technical field of the invention. The...

Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA), partial revocation (Article 65 UPCA). No abuse of right during the transitional period by also filing a patent infringement before the national regional court at Munich regarding the same acts and a patent belonging to the same patent family (Article 83 UPCA). 

Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result. Autonomy and coexistence of the absolute grounds for invalidity. Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is acting in bad faith when filing an application for a trade mark. Bad faith on the part of the...

Access initially limited to Statement of claim, Statements of defence and counterclaims and Reply to Statement of defence and Rejoinder to the Reply (R. 262 RoP) due to extensive case file, large number of errors in CMS and system errors and associated effort

Request for opportunity to comment on Statement of response denied. The written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submission of a statement of grounds of appeal by the appellant and a statement of response by the respondent. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the written procedure to give Amazon...