The Court’s competence (or jurisdiction) includes a separate action for determination of damages after a national court - before entry into force of the UPCA - has established the existence of an infringement of a European patent and an obligation in principle for the infringer to pay damages (Article 32(1) UPCA). The...

EP 453 maintained in part based on claims 6, 7 and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted (Article 65 UPCA). Admissible new documents Claimant (R. 44 RoP, R. 263 RoP). The claimant cannot introduce new grounds of invalidity of the attacked patent or introduce new documents considered novelty destroying or affecting...

No suspensive effect of appeal justified (R. 223 RoP, R. 25 RoP) by (i) a judgement to be expected ‘very soon’ in parallel proceedings, to which Bhagat is not a (intervening) party, and (ii) an unsubstantiated statement that there are “considerable doubts” as to the validity of the patent while no counterclaim for...

Justified to allow discretionary review in appeal of orders of the judge-rapporteur (absent panel review) (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The question whether the judge-rapporteur could decide alone on security for costs of a party and deny leave to appeal is an access to justice issue which the Court of Appeal can raise...

IPPT20250113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
Proceedings have been stayed as agreed by the parties until the date of the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO (R. 295 RoP). Panel review of order of judge-rapporteur to limit the number of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number (R. 30 RoP, R. 333...

Parties’ request for a 50% increase in the ceiling for representation cost denied (Article 69 UPCA, R. 152 RoP). No particularly complex case; pre-trial settlement costs not considered; each party owes € 7,500 euros in legal costs.

Withdrawal of the provisional measures; each party shall bear its own costs,  Security released (R. 265 RoP,  R 158 RoP)  and 
Withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation; each party shall bear its own costs, 40% of court fees reimbursed  

No legal basis for interest on reimbursable legal costs and other expenses (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.2 RoP). A corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP, which govern the procedure for setting damages and compensation and expressly provide for interest, is ruled out. No provision for judge-rapporteur to grant...

Withdrawal of the action by agreement; no need for cost decision, 20% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP)

Withdrawal of application for access to pleadings and evidence. No reimbursement of legal costs (R. 265 RoP). There is no legal basis for ordering a member of the public, who has made a request for access to written pleadings and evidence, to reimburse legal costs incurred by the parties to the relevant proceedings...

Withdrawal of the action by agreement; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Withdrawal of counterclaim for revocation and counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer; parties bearing their own costs, 60% of court fees reimbursed (R. 265 RoP, R. 370 RoP). Analogous...

IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the...

Withdrawal of appeal by party agreement (R. 265 RoP). No need for cost decision as both parties waive a decision on costs and the application for a cost decision before the Hamburg Local Division has been withdrawn. The withdrawal of the revocation counterclaim has the effect that the requests for amendment of the...

The withdrawal of the application for interim measures possible (R. 265 RoP, R. 212 RoP), since unserved ex parte order of 9 December 2024  prior to final decision upon review of granted ex parte order of 9 December 2024 is not a decision terminating the proceedings as the time limit for review has not yet begun to run...

Withdrawal of action upon application by Valeo (holder of preliminary injunction) with the consent of the appellant (Magna) (R. 265 RoP). In view of Magna’s consent, Magna cannot be considered to have a legitimate interest in the action being decided by the Court. No need for a decision on costs: parties have agreed...

Withdrawal parties bearing own costs (R. 265 RoP). No partial reimbursement of court fees applied for (R. 370.RoP). The decision follows the parties’ jointly expressed will. Insofar as R. 265.2 (c) RoP requires a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5 RoP, the decision takes into account the agreement...

Withdrawal and cost decision (R. 265.2(c) RoP). When admitting the withdrawal, the Court issues a decision on costs in accordance with Part 1, Chapter 5. A request by a party is not required in this respect. The parties' mutual consent may be taken into account in the cost decision.

Appeal dismissed, rightly granted access (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). A ‘reasoned request` in R.262.1(b)RoP means a request that not only states which written pleadings and evidence (…) the applicant wishes to obtain, but also specifies the purpose of the request and explains why the access to the specified documents...

Required explanation for setting aside a decision by default requires unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (R. 356(2) RoP) means that the applicant must demonstrate that they were unable to comply with peremptory time limits or to appear at the oral hearing at which they were summoned (except as provided for in...