2025 UPC November
Print this pageIPPT20251128, UPC CoA, Barco v Yealink
Application for interim measures (R. 206 RoP) . R. 19.5 RoP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A referral to the competent division is therefore also possible in such proceedings (Rule. 19.5 RoP). Competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance is a UPC internal matter (Article 33 UPCA). If the division seised considers that a defence raised on the competence of the local division is well-founded and the applicant for provisional measures indicated another division that is competent, it shall refer the application to that division. Absent a request to refer the application for provisional measures to a competent division, the division seised must dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the costs. Carrying out test purchases in a CMS where a patent is protected, does not amount to “competence manipulation”. There is no hierarchy between competence based on the place where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, and competence based on the residence or principal place of business of the defendant in Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA. It follows that it is for the applicant to decide on whom to bring proceedings against. To determine competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, the existence of infringing activities, for example an offer or the possibility to obtain the allegedly infringing devices through a website accessible in the Contracting Member State hosting the local division, needs to be established. There is no need to look for connecting factors in the territory of the local division seised in relation to each defendant to establish competence. Place of infringement (Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, Article 7(2) Brussels Regulation) The place “where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur” as referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA must be interpreted in the same way as the place “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation is interpreted in relation to alleged patent infringements, because the provisions have a similar purpose. This does not mean that the UPC has incorporated the substance of Art. 7(2) Brussels I Recast Regulation and its body of case law into Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. Neither does it mean that competence of the divisions of the Court of First Instance is governed by EU law pertaining to the Brussels I Recast Regulation. Order on the application for provisional measures (Rule 211 RoP) No undue delay justified by potential changes of products on the market. Interim award for costs (Rule 150.RoP) . An interim award of costs may also be ordered in favour of the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures. The fact that R. 211.1(d) RoP, unlike R. 150.2 RoP, does not expressly provide for interim award of costs to the successful party does not preclude this. The same rules apply in proceedings for interim measures as in the main proceedings. An interim award of costs up to the applicable ceiling for cost compensation makes the procedure for cost decision pursuant to R. 150 et seq RoP redundant. The Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs only applies to representation costs , there can be additional costs in the form of recovery of court fees, costs of witnesses, costs of experts, and other expenses ( R. 151(d) RoP).
IPPT20251127, UPC CoA, Vivo v Sun Patent
Request to stay first instance proceedings pending appeal dismissed. (Rule 21.2 RoP) No exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that, the preliminary objection relates to a question of jurisdiction which has never been decided by the court and has triggered a high amount of controversial discussion among scholars, does not constitute exceptional circumstances which can justify a stay. Extension of time limit for submission of statement of defence in first instance rejected in appeal. (Rule 9.3 RoP) Extension of time limits for submissions in the first instance proceedings must, as a general rule, be decided upon firstly by the CFI. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the first instance court overstepped the boundaries of its discretion.
IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hewlett-Packard v Zhuhai ouguan Electronic
Preliminary injuction granted. (Article 62(2) UPCA, Rule 211 RoP, Rule 209 RoP). A decision by default is not considered. Regular PI order is applicable. (Rule 355.1(a) RoP, Rule 209(1) RoP). If the defendant does not lodge an objection within the time period set by the Court, the application for provisional measures can be decided based on the applicant’s submissions by means of a regular order in the PI proceedings. It is more likely than not that Patents A and B are infringed (Rule 211.2 RoP). by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments by Defendant 1.
IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, JingAo Solar v Chint
Counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Standing to sue of claimant as registered proprietor (R. 8.5 RoP). No handwritten signature completely corresponds to another signature of the same individual; person signing is a Chinese citizen and therefore reasonably is used to sign with Chinese characters and not with Latin characters. Sufficient allegation and substantiation of the infringement action (R. 13.1(n) RoP). Explanations with regard to claim construction not mandatory (“where appropriate”). If all contested embodiments are identical in construction in the relevant features, a uniform presentation for all products of this series is sufficiently substantiated. No added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Claim 1 does not contain features from different embodiments: Figure 8 shows all the features present in claim 1. No lack of enabling disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC) in view of description and drawings. Late filed combination of documents D28 and D31 challenging inventive step (R. 25 RoP): Not in the Counterclaim for Revocation but in the Reply to the defence. Late filed arguments regarding D8. Not accepted on its own as a basis for a validity attack. According to the Counterclaim, the defendants still considered it necessary to combine D8 with D22 in order to demonstrate a lack of inventive step. Defendant’s argument regarding a combination of D8 and common general knowledge is not a response to claimant's submission. Inventive step – no incentive (Article 56 EPC). The skilled person would have to flip the entire construction of the solar cell of D7 around to transform it into a front junction solar cell, the skilled person has no reason to do so, since D7 precisely proposes an improved back junction solar cell.
IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, TP-Link v Huawei
Access granted to redacted versions (personal data) of pleadings (R. 262 RoP) in accordance with the confidentiality orders issued in the proceedings and the applications filed
IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Moderna
Discretionary order to separate counterclaim for revocation proceedings into two counterclaims, one concerning each patent. (Rule 302.1 RoP). Payment of court fees also warrants separation in counterclaims for revocation – new court fees of EUR 20,000 due. (Rule 370.4 RoP, Rule 26 RoP). Whereas in an infringement action concerning several related patents, the fact that multiple patents are involved can be taken into account for determination of the value of the action for applying the Rules on Court fees. This is not the case for counterclaims for revocation, as the court fee per counterclaim action is capped at EUR 20,000. The only way to reflect the complexity and size of the counterclaim action in view of court fees, is therefore to split the case.
IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Defendants granted access to listen to the recording of the oral hearing before the Local Division Mannheim dated 14 November 2025 , in conformity with established confidentiality regime. (Rule 262 RoP, R. 115 RoP) Request to produce a complete transcript with the help of a stenographer rejected. It is not necessary for the case at hand to coordinate with counsel of Defendants in non-UPC jurisdictions . Rule 115 RoP does not foresee that the UPC provides full transcripts of its hearings. A complete transcript of an audio recording is to be excluded especially in cases, where the parties set up a confidentiality regime and applied for the exclusion of the public during parts of the oral hearing.
IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Pai Pharma v Philips
Standing to sue for revocation action – a competitor is “concerned by a patent” (Article 47(6) UPCA). Any party (potentially) operating in the technical field of the patent are “concerned” by a patent. The legal certainty aimed at by allowing a standalone revocation action is especially important for competitors of the patentee who may want to make sure they have “freedom to operate” in a certain field and therefore safety with regard to developments and investments. Novelty (Article 54 EPC). The skilled person will generally not (directly and unambiguously) deduce dimensions from schematic figures. Partial revocation (Article 65(3) UPCA). Auxiliary request 1 inadmissible: leaves the amendment of the patent to the discretion of the Court, and is furthermore illogical, thus perplex. The Court may may not assess clarity and conciseness issues, if they stem from unclarity issues already present in granted dependent claims (Article 84 EPC). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Burden of proof of existence of common general knowledge is on the party invoking it (Article 54 UPCA). The inhalation valve an essential feature of the device of D3. There is no hint to remove the valves. Therefore, D3 teaches away from omitting the inhalation valve 20.
IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe
Preliminary objections dismissed (R. 20 RoP). Request to set aside a Statement of findings (procès-verbal de constat) and subsequent expert report not granted (R. 334(g) RoP). Reference to French national law to challenge the probative value not relevant as the UPC is governed by specific rules of evidence (Article 53 UPCA, R. 170 RoP - R. 189 RoP). Statement of Claim alleges that website is accessible within French territory (Article 7(2) BR) it is not necessary to demonstrate that the website in question is specifically aimed at the French public; the sole criterion that the website is accessible within French territory is sufficient to establish an infringement of a digital product or digital service offered online. Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR also extents to third country territories (namely Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland), based on the BSH decision: applies regardless of whether the basis for jurisdiction is established under Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (domicile of one of the defendants) or on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place where the harmful event occurred), contrary to what is claimed by the defendants.
PPT20251127, UPC CoA, Strabag v Swarco
Like a claimant an appellant may also apply to withdraw an appeal (R. 265.1 RoP). Interest of an intervening party is not relevant. The intervener's appeal in this case is inadmissible pursuant to R. 360 RoP. If the intervener is prevented by the withdrawal of the main party's appeal from the scope of its appeal from bringing about a review of the first-instance decision in terms of fact and law, it may invoke this in any subsequent proceedings against both parties. In this respect, the intervener's binding effect under R. 316.3 RoP is limited. The binding effect of decisions against the intervener. can only apply insofar as the intervener is not restricted in its conduct of the proceedings.
IPPT20251126, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Barco v Yealink
Stay of Preliminary Objection proceedings ordered until the decision in UPC_CoA_317/2025. (Rule 295 RoP , Rule 19 RoP)
IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
Claim Interpretation main claim (Article 69 EPC). If a dependent claim is only adding an additional feature that does not provide a more specific description of the features of the main claim, it generally argues against the possibility of drawing conclusions about the interpretation of the main claim from this dependent claim. Claim interpretation medical use claim (Article 69 EPC). For ‘medical use-format’ claims, it is an inherent claim feature that the claimed product must be objectively suitable for the claimed use, i.e. be therapeutically effective. The implicit requirement that the claimed antibodies must be effective as a medicament for the treatment or prevention of the diseases mentioned in the claim means that not any lowering of cholesterol levels, let alone any binding of PCSK9 to LDLR as Respondents argue, suffices. A therapeutic effect requires that the claimed treatment causes a noticeable improvement of the medical condition of the patient suffering from the disease mentioned in the claim. […] the treatment must be meaningful. That the skilled person does not derive any minimum required effect from the claim or the description does not lead to another conclusion, since the feature of therapeutic effect does not follow from the claim language that is to be interpreted, but from the use of the medical use claim format. Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC). The assessment of added matter is a question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts brought forward by the parties. The facts are the relevant claims and the application as filed. Since the test is whether the relevant claims have basis in the application as a whole, the Court is allowed to look at the entire document. Sufficiency (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). Sufficiency has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole (claims, description and drawings), from the perspective of the skilled person with his common general knowledge at the filing or priority date. The test is whether the skilled person is able to reproduce the claimed subject matter on the basis of the patent without any inventive effort and without undue burden. An invention is sufficiently disclosed if the patent specification shows the skilled person at least one way – and in case of functional features: one technical concept – of performing the claimed invention. Where a claim contains one or more functional features, it is not required that the disclosure includes specific instructions as to how each and every conceivable embodiment within the functional definition(s) should be obtained. The burden of presentation and proof lies with Respondents as the party invoking invalidity of the patent. A reasonable amount of trial and error does not prevent the invention from being enabled. Inventive step Article 56 EPC). Same as UPC CoA Meril v Edwards of the same date with added criteria on “reasonable expectation of success” A claimed solution is obvious if the skilled person would have taken the next step in expectation of finding an envisaged solution of his technical problem. This is generally the case when the results of the next step were clearly predictable, or where there was a reasonable expectation of success. The burden of proof that the results were clearly predictable or the skilled person would have reasonably expected success, i.e. that the solution he envisages by taking the next step would solve the objective problem, lies on the party asserting invalidity of the patent. A reasonable expectation of success implies the ability of the skilled person to predict rationally, on the basis of scientific appraisal of the known facts before a research project was started, the successful conclusion of that project within acceptable time limits. Whether there is a reasonable expectation of success depends on the circumstances of the case. The more unexplored a technical field of research, the more difficult it was to make predictions about its successful conclusion and the lower the expectation of success. Envisaged practical or technical difficulties as well as the costs involved in testing whether the desired result will be obtained when taking a next step may also withhold the skilled person from taking that step. On the other hand, the stronger a pointer towards the claimed solution, the lower the threshold for a reasonable expectation of success. The fact that other persons or teams were working contemporaneously on the same project does not necessarily imply that there was a reasonable expectation of success.
IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
“Same parties” must be identical parties (Article 33(4) UPCA, Article 29 BR). Limited review in appeal of subsequent (third) application to amend the patent given margin of discretion of the judge-rapporteur (R. 50.2 RoP, R. 263 RoP). Edwards could not reasonably have introduced the amendments at an earlier stage. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). As a general rule, a product or process presented as an embodiment by the patent specification may be considered covered by the patent claims. m. Novelty and added matter are distinct legal concepts and are not governed by identical requirements (Article 54 EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC. As a general rule, a specific disclosure, such as a disclosure of the combination of features A and B, takes away the novelty of a more general patent claim claiming feature A as such. In contrast, a patent claim claiming feature A as such may extend beyond a more specific disclosure of the combination of A and B in the application. General principles regarding inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Different approaches for assessing inventive step, like the problem-solution-approach or a more holistic approach, are merely guidelines to assist in the establishment of inventive step […] that, when properly applied, should and generally do lead to the same conclusion. T. In case of infringement, not granting an injunction requires a special reason (Article 63 UPCA, Article 11 Enforcement Directive) such as if an injunction would be disproportionate taking into consideration not only the interest of the parties to the litigation but also interest of third parties such as patients (Article 3 Enforcement Directive). Interim award of costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP) As a general rule, the successful party is not entitled to an interim reimbursement of representation costs of more than 50% of the ceiling of recoverable costs.
IPPT20251124, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application for suspensive effect of appeal rejected (R.223 RoP, Article 74.1 UPCA). The requirement of exceptional circumstances has to be established by the applicant. Suinno has no evidence of exceptional circumstances which would justify why the lodging of the appeal shall have suspensive effect. Microsoft not heard as the decision on application for suspensive effect is to be made without delay (R. 223.3 RoP) . No demonstration that PCD’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors. Suinno has merely claimed that it would be unreasonable for Microsoft to proceed with the enforcement of the costs decisions without establishing that the impugned decision is manifestly erroneous.
IPPT20251121, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Merz v Viatris Santé
Application for provisional measures regarding a generic version of a product protected by SPC rejected. (R.206 RoP) MERZ failed to demonstrate seeking provisional measures against VIATRIS within reasonable delay provided for by Rule 211.4 RoP. Applicants seeking provisional measures have to justify that they have been sufficiently diligent to have access to an expedited procedure. To determine the starting point of the reasonable time limit for taking action, the Court should consider the question: 'When did the applicant become aware, or should have become aware, of the infringement that would enable him, in accordance with R. 206.2 RoP, to file an Application for provisional measures with a reasonable prospect of success?. The court does not follow the line of reasoning by the applicant that the UPC texts provide for two possible starting points regarding the reasonable time limit for taking PI action, which are successive points in time. (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 RoP). Article 62.1UPCA and Rule 211.2 RoP mention that 'the right is infringed OR such infringement is imminent', and do not make a distinction between two separate and consecutive situations that would create two phases likely to trigger the urgency criterion. Rather, they provide for two alternative situations that allow for a preliminary injunction claim to be brought before the UPC. The criterion of imminent risk of infringement is particularly relevant in the context of a generic product being placed on the market. The applicant need not wait for the product to be placed on the market to analyse it and gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such product infringes, at least prima facie, the claims of their title (patent or SPC). Such a product automatically falls within the scope of protection once it is classified as a generic version of the product protected by said title and declared as such.The fact that the first act of infringement on the French market occurred on the date of publication of the French market launch cannot be considered as a new starting point that creates urgency . Thus, to quote the terms of The Hague LD, this fact "was already (to be) expected and does not revive urgency". (Cilag v Rivolution)
IPPT20251120, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Exchange of further written pleadings partially allowed. (Rule 36 RoP). Claimant allowed to submit EPO’s preliminary opinion and a summary of the EPO’s reasoning until 21 November 2025. Submission of second test purchase rejected. The claimant does not sufficiently explain why the submission could not have been made earlier in the reply to the statement of defence filed on 16 December 2024 , as the test purchase was conducted in October 2024. The submission does not introduce any genuinely new subject matter.
IPPT20251120, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
Patent partially revoked for lack of inventive step , to the extent it covers more than auxiliary request III, with claims 5 and 6 remaining unchanged. (Article 56 EPC, Rule 25 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). There is no lack of clarity in the amended claim 1 in which the numerical value of the angle (40° - 60°) has been changed (Article 84 EPC). According to the original application, larger angles, such as 90°, are disclosed. The skilled person is taught, that angles >60° are also possible, with 90° being mentioned as an example. Lack of inventive step in Claims 3 and 6 of the patent. (Article 56 EPC). When assessing inventive step, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied on, and in such a case, it is usually necessary for the person skilled in the art to have an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the state of the art. Scope of Revocation action : The plaintiff has not challenged claims 5 and 6 within the scope of the action for revocation. If the claimant in revocation action decides not to attack one or more claims of the patent as granted, the court and the defendant are bound to this scope of the action.
IPPT20251119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, InterDigital v Disney
Further exchange of written pleadings allowed (Rule 36 RoP) . Claimant permitted to respond to Defendant’s arguments regarding noninfringement and FRAND.
IPPT20251119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
Confidentiality club regime regarding inspection report by expert. (Article 60 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure). Confidential information irrelevant to the question of infringement must be redacted. Access to confidential information relating to the issue of infringement and/or the scope of acts of use, to be decided on case-by-case basis
IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments
Patents valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA).Claim Interpretation (Article 69 EPC, Interpretation Protocol). Feature 1(h): No literal infringement: It follows from the strict, literal wording of the claim that the term “non-overlapping” is to be interpreted as not allowing any kind of overlap. This literal interpretation is confirmed when considering the teaching of the patent specifications. No infringement by equivalence with regard to the missing ‘non-overlapping’ feature. In view of the legal certainty for third parties, the Court finds it difficult if not impossible to properly construe how much overlap would then still be equivalent. The nucleotide overlap in the defendant’s products has technical function of its own. No added matter (Article 138 (1)(c) EPC).The test for added matter is the same gold standard as set out for novelty. In order to assess whether there is added matter, the Court must first ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed, whereby implicitly disclosed subject-matter, i.e. matter that is a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned, shall also be considered as part of its content. For feature 1(h), which teaches that the at least two capture probes hybridize to non-overlapping regions of the label probe, no expressis verbis basis can be found in the original application as filed. However, in all figures in which at least two capture probes bind to the label probe, this binding is to non-overlapping regions. For instance, from figure 4, replicated once more below, it can be derived that the binding/hybridisation of the L sections of the capture probe is to non-overlapping sections of the label probe LP. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Prior art teaches away from invention.
IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina Medical v Tonglu Qianyan
Ex- Parte order for Preservation and inspection of evidence granted (Art. 60 UPCA, R 192, R. 194 (d), 197, 199 RoP). Applicant has credibly demonstrated that the “disposable morcellator“, exhibited at the MEDICA exhibition in Düsseldorf, makes use of the teaching of the patent in suit . All features set out in claims 1 to 6 of the patent are implemented. With the exception of the labelling, the product which is presented by the Defendant is identical in appearance to the American product examined by the Applicant. The Applicant has demonstrated why the proposed measures are needed to preserve evidence without hearing the Defendant.
IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina v Schultz
Ex- parte order for the preservation of evidence and inspection granted to the applicant for products exhibited at a trade fair (Rule 192, Rule 194, Rule 197, 199 RoP).It is likely that the morcellator “MORCELLIX“, exhibited at the MEDICA exhibition in Düsseldorf, makes use of the teaching of the patent in suit. No indications that the Applicant had any previous opportunity to inspect the product within the territorial scope of the patent . Demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available - the products are small items that can easily be carried in one hand. Furthermore, the products are exhibited at a trade fair which only takes place for a short time (4 days).
IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Boehringer v Zentiva
Preliminary Objection rejected, the UPC has exclusive Jurisdiction. (Article 31 , Article 32 UPCA, Rule 19.1(a) RoP) . No opt-out from the exclusive competence related to the Patent is in effect. (Rule 19.1(a) RoP). The action lodged by the Claimant does not concern an administrative matter. (Article 1(1) Brussels Regulation).
IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart
Service of Statement of claim at an alternative place allowed - CEO’s business address in Poland. (Rule 275.1 RoP)Good reason to authorise alternative service after two failed service attempts.
IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Komax v Jiangsu
Ex – parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted for the respondent’s exhibition booth at an upcoming trade fair, pending validity proceedings. (Rule 192, Rule 194, Rule 197, 199 RoP). The “BZW3005” machine, which is expected to be exhibited at “Productronica” in Munich, may make use of the technical teaching of of the patent
IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Unredacted version of the expert’s description following an order for inspection and preservation of evidence disclosed to the applicant. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196, Rule 194, 199 RoP). Respondent has not asserted confidentiality interests with regard to the information contained in the description provided by the expert. An order for inspection and preservation of evidence must contain a statement that the results of these measures may only be used in the relevant proceedings on the merits (unless the court orders otherwise).
IPPT20251113, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, AdvanSix v Troy Chemical
Withdrawal of infringement proceedings granted with parties’ consensus. Confidentiality pertaining to confidential settlement information maintained. (Rule 265 RoP , Rule 262.2 RoP)
IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Organon v Genentech
Ex parte orders to preserve evidence and for inspection confirmed (R 197.3 RoP. R. 199 RoP). A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings. First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” decided to issue the “ex parte” Order. The Court should then assess whether the Orders are to be confirmed, modified or revoked. Facts and evidence to be taken into consideration include all facts and evidence presented to the Court by the parties. (Rule 194.3(b) RoP). For both assessments the Court should place itself on the date of issuance of the Orders. The scope of the review assessment does not pertain to the actual execution of the Orders and/or the outcome of such execution or any information gathered during such execution. As such, the general purpose of an order to preserve evidence/for inspection is to: a) anable an applicant who has "presented reasonably available evidence to support the claim" to access additional information that is not publicly available to prove the infringement and the acts constituting infringement, and b) If granted, based on the preserved information, enable the applicant to evaluate the reliable prospects of success in initiating infringement proceedings. “About to be infringed” in Art. 60 UPCA does not have the same meaning as “urgency” (in R. 194(2) RoP) or “unreasonable delay” in R. 211.4 RoP: must be a plausible a risk of infringement and it must be apparent that it will occur in the future. According to Art. 60(5) UPCA measures shall be ordered ex parte, where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed. “Ugency” is only one of the elements that the Court should consider when exercising discretionary powers and, therefore, cannot be considered a compulsory precondition for granting the requested measures “ex parte”.
IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, American Wave Machine v Surftown
Request for review of order regarding dismissal of extension of time period for lodging of a rejoinder denied. (Rule 333.1 RoP, Rule 9 (3) RoP). Reasons why Defendants needed an extension of time is not pointed out in the request for extension or the panel review request. (Rule 9 (3)RoP). Their sole argument can be deduced to the fact that the Claimant had more time to file a brief than the Defendants. Besides the fact, that the Rules of Procedures accept different time periods for different briefs. The Defendant’s approach regarding filing an application for confidentiality to cause delay would lead to situations where parties would be able to file applications for confidentiality in the future well knowing that any delay caused by their application would additionally grant them longer time periods for their further submissions. (Rule 262A RoP)
IPPT20251111, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Solvay v Zhejiang
Panel review confirmation of Judge Rapporteur’s order dated 25 September 2025 regarding confidentiality club (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 333 RoP). It is possible for a person who is not an employee of a party to join a confidentiality club, depending on the relevant circumstances of the case. Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative. (Art. 48 UPCA) Such a requirement does not follow from the wording of the provision and unduly restricts a party’s freedom to choose its assistants in the proceedings (UPC_CoA_621/2024 Daedalus v Xiaomi).
IPPT20251111, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Rentmeister
The steps already taken to bring the application for provisional measures to the attention of the Defendant constitute good service. (Rule. 275.2 RoP) following the Dusseldorf court’s compliance with the requirements for an application for provisional measures as per the Hague Convention, the status of the request for service remaining unchanged on the official portal of the Chinese authorities, the establishment that the address of Defendant is correct and that two requests for information on the status of the service, have remained unanswered for three weeks. There is no scope for an order under (R. 275.1 RoP) given that the first attempt took three and a half months and the Applicant’s attempt to inform the Defendant of the application for provisional measures by email has remained unanswered.
IPPT20251107, UPC CoA, OTEC v STEROS
Preliminary injunction set aside (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). More likely than not that the nonconductive fluid under feature 1.2 is not reproduced by the attacked embodiment. STEROS has failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment, namely the electropolishing medium EF 16-11 with solid particles, contains a non-conductive liquid immiscible in the conductive solution which does not significantly conduct electric current according to the above claim construction, that is with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm. Claim construction feature 1.2 (Article 69 EPC). When considering an emulsion as the non-conductive fluid under feature 1.2, the electrical conductivity of the overall emulsion shall be assessed, not that of each ingredient of the emulsion. Although claim 1 of the patent does not set the specific details on the configuration of the non-conductive fluid under feature 1.2, the description under the general heading [...] citly refers to non-conductive fluids based on emulsified systems as one type of non-conductive fluid [0088]. Experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are, as a general rule, not relevant to the interpretation of the patent claims. Person skilled in the art would understand that the non-conductivity of the non-conductive fluid matters only after it has been combined with the polymeric particles and conductive solution in the percentages by mass as indicated in Table 1 to become the electrolytic medium protected as final product in patent claim 1.
IPPT20251107, UPC CoA, Lepu v Occlutech
Application for suspensive effect appeal unfounded (R. 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA). Lepu has failed to demonstrate that the Hamburg Local Division’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations that are clearly untenable even on the basis of a summary assessment. In addition, Lepu argues that enforcing the provisional injunction would cause damage to its reputation. However, it failed to demonstrate that its interests in preventing such damage outweigh Occlutech’s interests in preventing the imminent patent infringement, as established by the Hamburg Local Division.
IPPT20251107, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yangtze v Micron
Request for extension of time period for lodging the statement of defence allowed. (Rule 9.3 RoP). It is in the interests of both parties and the Court that the time limits in 3 three parallel cases end at the same time. The extension of the time periods is not expected to cause any significant delay in the proceedings.
IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Request for security for costs dismissed. (Rule 158 RoP). Defendants have not argued that the financial position of the Applicant gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that costs may not be recoverable. Defendants have not provided any evidence as to foreign law applicable in the territory where the order is to be enforced, or any evidence on the application of such law.
IPPT20251106, UPC CoA, Black Sheep Retail v HL Display
Application for suspensive effect of order to communicate information unfounded (R. 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA). Communication of information belongs to measures that, when so ordered, are necessary to ensure a high level of protection. It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended. If the defendant can reasonably foresee that the orders and evidence requested by the claimant may require it to disclose confidential information, this should be raised by the defendant during the proceedings on the merits.
IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
Costs decision (Article 69 UPCA) Costs incurred by Microsoft set at EUR 350,000.00, To be paid by Suinno in three weeks
IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Brita v Fileder
Provisional measures granted via an ex-parte preliminary injunction for the seizure and surrender of infringing goods. (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 206 RoP, Rule 211 RoP , Rule 212 RoP , Article 25 UPCA). The applicant has demonstrated that the contested embodiments utilize all features of claim 1 of the patent. It is sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent supplies the German distribution company with the contested embodiments, thus engaging infringing acts . (Article 25(a) UPCA). The matter is urgent and there are no indications of undue delay by the petitioner. (Rule. 209.2(b) RoP , Rule 211.4 RoP)
IPPT20251105, UPC CoA, Seoul Viosys v expert
Added matter (Article 138(1)(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC, Article 153(4) EPC). The court may, ex officio, find that the skilled person cannot derive a corresponding disclosure from the earlier application. This finding must be determined on the basis of the skilled person's understanding when reading the earlier application in its entirety. With a translation of an international application into one of the official languages of the EPO the applicant submits the application documents to the EPO in the language of the proceedings and it can be assumed prima facie that such a translation submitted by the patent applicant himself accurately reflects the content of the international application in the language of the application. Third parties and the court may, when assessing the inadmissible extension, rely prima facie on the translation of the application submitted by the patent proprietor to the EPO and published by it. If the patent proprietor claims that this translation is incorrect, he must prove the inaccuracy.
IPPT20251105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dolle v Farko
Counterclaim for revocation unsuccessful, patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Rule 25 RoP). No invalid claim of priority of the first application. (Article 87 EPC) . The term “the same invention” is to be interpreted as meaning that a claimed invention is to be regarded as the same invention as the invention in an earlier application if the person skilled in the art can derive the subject matter of the claim directly and unambiguously from the earlier application as a whole, using general technical knowledge. (UPC_CoA_382/2024). The person skilled in the art can directly and unambiguously derive features 1.6 and 1.7 from the priority document, even if the features are not explicitly set forth in the priority document. The patent is novel over late filed prior art documents (Annexes NK 22 and 23) (Article 54 EPC) . Which were submitted after the expiration of the deadline. The expansion of the revocation claim to include late filed prior art documents constitutes an amendment under Rule 263 RoP. The burden of proof that neither the requirements of Rule 263(1) RoP nor the grounds for exclusion under Rule 263(2) RoP are met lies with the applicant. Based on this, there are doubts as to whether the defendants’ submissions justify the admission of this extension of the counterclaim despite the delay. Patent Infringed (Article 25 UPCA). The contested embodiments implement all the features of claim 1 without difficulty.
IPPT20251103, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia v Disney
Orders following interim conference (R. 105.5). Value of the main claim and counterclaim set at €12,000,000. Fee difference for the main claim to be paid by Adeia. (R. 371.4). Request for confidentiality granted as submitted by Disney. (Rule 262A)
