2026 UPC April

IPPT20260430, UPC CoA, Adobe v KEEEX
Appeal from security for costs order (R.  158 RoP) inadmissible in the absence of a leave to appeal (R. 220.2 RoP). Appeals against security for costs orders require prior authorisation from the CFI unless brought with the final decision. A general reference to appeal provisions does not constitute permission to appeal. There was indeed an error in the CFI’s judgment (The CFI wrongly indicated the appeal route as being via R. 220.1 RoP). Parties cannot rely on such errors where they are aware of them. Appellant recognised that R. 220.2 applied. Proceeding without leave was a conscious procedural choice and a failure attributable to the appellant. For the sake of completeness, the claimant’s relative financial position compared with that of the defendant does not constitute a criterion.

IPPT20260428, UPC CoA, Optopol v Topcon
Request for discretionary review by Court of Appeal dismissed of retroactive extension of time period for lodging Reply (R. 220.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP, R. 9.3(a) RoP). Impugned order not manifestly incorrect. The LD dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights pursuant to R. 320 RoP and used its discretion to retroactively extend the time period for lodging the Reply based on R. 9.3(a) RoP. The LD did not exceed its discretionary powers in coming to this decision. Understandable and reasonable finding of excusable human error based on conclusion that a system of checks had been put into place within the representatives’ law firm and that despite this system, the deadline was missed by a human error, in particular by the assistant of Respondent’s representatives incorrectly noting the prescribed time period in the system on which the Respondent’s representatives relied. Moreover, when exercising its discretion, the LD correctly considered that the extension of the time period would not cause any delay in the proceedings.

IPPT20260428, UPC CoA, FAKRO v Dolle
Appeal stayed at joint request of the parties (R. 295(d) RoP) to facilitate a pending settlement and avoid unnecessary deadlines

IPPT20260428, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
Application to revoke security for costs order rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA, R. 158 RoP, R. 336 RoP). Article 69(4) UPCA does not only apply to cases referred to in Art. 59-62 UPCA. […]. Nor does Art. 69(4) UPCA suggest that the requirement to provide security for costs should be the exception. The purpose of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA is to protect the opposing party from difficulties in enforcing a claim for reimbursement of costs. There are no concerns regarding the security order under the Enforcement Directive. No basis for referral to CJEU (Article 21 UPCA). For there to be jurisdiction, the request for a preliminary ruling must concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter applicable to the case in the main proceedings. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the EU law, the Enforcement Directive and TRIPS agreement, do not prevent the imposition of a security for costs order. For this reason alone, a referral to the CJEU is out of the question. No extension of deadline for providing security (R. 9.3 RoP). Although the Court has the power to revoke or amend an order for security for costs under R. 335 RoP, applicants cannot usually rely on the Court granting an application for revocation or amendment.

IPPT20260427, UPC CoA, Niche v Onward
Withdrawal of application for the assessment of costs permitted, without need to hear the respondent. The application has not yet been served on the respondent (R. 265 RoP, R. 151 RoP).

IPPT20260424, UPC CoA, Polytechnik v Dall Energy
Suspensive effect of appeal from order to produce evidence rejected (R. 223 RoP, R. 190 RoP, R. 262A RoP). The appeal is not devoid of purpose: a succesfull appeal  would result in the exclusion of the produced documents from the evidentiary record. The impugned Order must be clearly construed as meaning that only the Claimant’s representatives and their legal team are authorized to access the confidential information specified therein and that these representatives and their legal team are prohibited from sharing the confidential information with the Claimant. No breach of fundamental procedural rights. The system of procedural rules governing proceedings before the UPC follows the principle that all facts and evidence must be adduced to the proceedings as early as possible, ideally during the written procedure. This is also intended to ensure the fair conduct of the proceedings by enabling all parties to be fully informed of the facts and arguments forming the subject-matter of the dispute.

IPPT20260423, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Quantificare v Canfield
Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Infringement order in respect of all Contracting States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA). For an order to be issued in respect of all Contracting Member States in which the patent is in force, it is sufficient to determine an infringing act in one Contracting Member State. This applies even if an infringing act can only be determined in a Contracting Member State in which the patent proprietor does not assert any claims in the infringement action for procedural reasons – pending national patent infringement proceedings - (‘carve out’). Motion for provisional reimbursement of costs in Reply to the statement of defence dismissed as late filed amendment (R. 263 RoP).Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings may serve as an indication of the understanding of a person skilled in the art as of the filing date. […] This is based on the idea that the applicant himself usually has the best understanding of his invention […]. It appears doubtful whether this case law can be extended to statements made during the grant proceedings regarding a patent other than the patent at issue. In any event, nothing can be inferred from such statements if they do not reveal a specific understanding of the scope of protection of the patent at issue. This is the case here. Liability for damages (Article 68 UPCA). As specialized companies, the defendants were obligated to monitor the intellectual property rights situation. Furthermore, they had positive knowledge of the allegations brought against them at the latest since the warning letter issued in 2020 and, subsequently, also through the German patent infringement proceedings. Nor can the defendants successfully argue that the Federal Patent Court has since declared the contested patent invalid. The defendants themselves do not claim that they engaged in acts of use only during the period between the first-instance judgment of the Federal Patent Court and the dismissal of the German nullity action by the Federal Court of Justice.

IPPT20260422, UPC CFI CD Paris, Huntsman v BASF
Patent maintained in amended form. Court must examine the standing to sue on its own motion. Revocation action admissible despite patent expiry (Article 65 UPCA, R. 42 RoP). A revocation action remains admissible after expiry if infringement damages for the past are at stake. Claimants had a legitimate interest due to pending enforcement actions (evidence preservation and damages). Purely editorial corrections to auxiliary requests admissible (R. 263 RoP). Inventive Step (Article 56 EPC, R. 30 RoP). The Court is not bound by the patent’s stated problem and may reformulate the problem based on the whole disclosure. The Court found that the real technical problem is improving adhesion between PIR foam and deck layers, not flame retardancy. The technical difference (density ranges) is a routine selection because they overlapped with known values in the prior art and reflected standard parameters that a skilled person would adjust based on practical requirements. Since no specific or unexpected technical effect was linked to these ranges, their selection did not involve an inventive step. Application to amend the patent (R. 30 RoP). When examining the auxiliary claims, the court is bound by the arguments put forward by the plaintiff regarding their patentability and takes only those into account. The grounds cited in the main claim with respect to the granted version are therefore taken into account when examining the auxiliary claims only if the plaintiff invokes them. Costs to be shared as claimants were not entirely successful in their claims (Article 69 UPCA). As the defendant has not submitted a claim for costs, the Court issues an order, on the basis of Article 76 of the UPCA, only on the costs of the claimants. 

IPPT20260421, UPC CoA, Merz v Viatris
CFI decision set aside: provisional measures granted. Invalidity defence in proceedings for provisional measures does not require a counterclaim for revocation and is not a separate action (R. 25.1 RoP, R. 205 RoP). Similarly, a waiver of an invalidity defence in proceedings for provisional measures is not an application to change the claim or amend the case in the meaning of R. 263 RoP, nor is it a withdrawal in the sense of R. 265 RoP.  Admission of new evidence in appeal (R. 222.2 RoP). New evidence admitted to challenge factual assumptions made by the CFI. Public legal materials admitted despite belatedness: the Court of Appeal exercises its discretion here and admits exhibits 226-228 in the proceedings. These exhibits are relevant and the Court of Appeal would have been unhindered to inform itself of these orders.Exhibints 229, 230 and 231 (e-mail correspondence between Viatris Santé and CEPS) are disregarded due to belatedness and lack of relevance. Imminent infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP) and undue delay (R. 211.4 RoP). There is no need to determine in this case whether awareness of an imminent infringement also sets the clock in motion for the calculation of delay within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP caused by an actual infringement. This is because there is insufficient support for the view that Merz was aware or should have been aware of any imminent infringement. Necessity and balance of interests (Article 62.2 UPCA, R. 211.3 RoP). Concluded that the patients’ interests of continuous supply cannot be expected to be jeopardized by a provisional injunction. The short time left before SPC 033 expires does not speak against provisional measures, especially since this is due to a reversal of the order of the Local Division on appeal. 

IPPT20260421, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Dismissal of revocation action (Article 65 |UPCA) and of infringement action (Article 25 UPCA). Jurisdiction of the UPC in infringement action regarding all defendants, including Spanish defendant (Article 8 Brussels I) for the allegedly infringing conduct committed in Spain by all the defendants: with regard to Defendants nos. 1 and 2, (based on the general rule of the forum of domicile) with regard to Defendant no. 6, based on article 8 Brussels I: risk of irreconcilable judgements, same situation of fact and law, predictability and non abusive summoning. Competence of the UPC (Article 25 UPCA, Article 32(1)(a) UPCA). No lack of standing of holding company because of excerpt of the Chamber of commerce (activity consist of “productions and commercialization of sport gear”) and prior engagement in multiple litigations against plaintiff. Whether or not defendant is actually involved in the infringement is a different matter. Stay of infringement action in respect of Spanish action (R. 295(m) RoP) until the irrevocable decision on validity of the national Spanish portion of EP’364. No stay of proceedings in spite of accelerated appeal against decision of opposition division (R. 295(a) RoP, R. 298 RoP). Decision of Board of Appeal not expected before the end of 2026, no reasonable likelihood that the patent will be declared in valid given decision of opposition division; the objective of procedural efficiency; as requested by all the parties. Inventive step and evidence ((R. 171(2) RoP, Article 56 EPC). Documents are facts, how these are interpreted interpretation for the purpose of assessing inventive step is a question of argument. No infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). Not all regions that are not occupied by the airbag are second regions within the definition given in claim 1. […]. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the second region cannot be negligible, as already assessed on claim interpretation [...].  It must be sufficient to allow ventilation when the airbag is deflated, and that the airbag expands into this region when it inflates; this is, after all, the invention. 

IPPT20260420, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Nokia v Geely
Ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction granted prohibiting the defendants from pursuing a Chinese “interim licence” (Article 32 UPCA, Article 56 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Article 7 Brussels I). The Court has jurisdiction and competence. The place where the threatened infringement of the applicants’ patent rights is to occur lies within the jurisdiction of the UPC. The applicants would be prevented from enforcing their patents, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC. Right to block interim licence. The patent includes a right to judicial enforcement. 

IPPT20260417, UPC CoA, Guardant v Sophia
Leave to appeal a cost decision granted (R. 221.3 RoP). Decision should have been issued after Guardant had access to the unredacted version of the application and exhibit SG106, and had the opportunity to comment on them. Request to join the appeal with the pending appeal on the merits refused (R. 340 RoP). The assessment of costs is the subject of a specific and separate procedure (R.150 et seq. RoP), which also includes a specific appeal procedure in accordance with R.157 and R. 221 RoP. According to R.221.4 RoP., if leave to appeal a cost decision is granted, the standing judge shall decide the appeal.

IPPT20260417, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sinocare
Preliminary injunction granted in appeal (R. 211 RoP, R. 242 RoP). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim 1 only requires that the monitored glucose levels and the event data icons are included in the same timeline graph. The claim does not require both to be in the same area of the graph or within a certain range of one another. Obviousness attack in proceedings for provisional measures requires substantiated argumentation (R. 24 RoP, R. 211 RoP, Article 56 EPC). A defendant who raises an obviousness attack in proceedings for provisional measures must substantiate why it considers it more likely than not that the patent will be held invalid based on the submitted prior art. This requires substantiated argumentation and not merely submitting a multitude of documents and quoting a few isolated sentences from each of these documents without explaining why a skilled person would make this combination and how the invention would be obtained in an obvious manner from this combination. Assessment of inventive step and non-technical features (Article 56 EPC). A claim feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it is a non-technical feature, i.e. a feature which, on its own, would be considered a “non-invention” under Art. 52(2) EPC. A feature that is non-technical as such may still contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention as a whole by its interaction with the other claim features. Therefore, the interrelationship and functioning of the claim features must be assessed together […]. No direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). It is undisputed between the parties that Respondents do not sell or offer to sell receiver units (mobile phones) according to feature 1.4. As a result, the Respondents do not directly infringe claim 1 of the patent (Art. 25 (a) UPCA). The Respondents have also not been shown to directly infringe claim 14 (Art. 25 (b) UPCA). They have not been shown to use the patented process themselves, or to have offered the process in an infringing manner, i.e. by offering the patented process under the conditions of Art. 25 (b) UPCA for other than private and non-commercial use by diabetes patients (Art. 27 (a) UPCA). Indirect infringement by Respondent 2 by offering and supplying to diabetes patients for their private and non-commercial use (Article 26 UPCA). In its brochures, via its website and at various exhibitions, Respondent 2 has promoted and sold the Sensor Assembly and the On-Body Device of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory for use together with the iCan App to be installed on the users’ mobile phones. Indirect infringement by Respondent 1 (i) by active involvement in the marketing and (ii) as someone to whom the acts of Respondent 2 are attributable as instigator, accomplice or accessory because of its strategic partnership with Respondent 2 (Article 26 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA).  Scope of preliminary injunction (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.1(a) RoP). Provisional injunction not extended to the earlier Sinocare iCan and its software application which has been on the market since October 2023 and against which Appellant has not acted prior to the institution of these proceedings. Generally worded injunction generally justified and has the benefit that if, for example, the infringing product is slightly changed without altering the technical features that are decisive for the technical teaching of the patent, or similar products would be introduced on the market under a different name, these products are covered by the issued injunction. Injunction limited to UPC territory (except Romania) for which jurisdiction has been accepted (Article 34 UPCA). No grace period of one month in view of the contemplated design around. The Application was filed in June 2025, which provided sufficient time to the Respondents to perform the necessary preparations for the launch of a potential design around (the details of which were not provided by the Respondents). Inadmissible cross-appeal (R. 220.1 RoP, R. 237 RoP). Pursuant to R. 220.1 RoP, only a party adversely affected by a decision may lodge an appeal. The same applies to a cross-appeal pursuant to R. 237 RoP. A cross-appeal is inadmissible if the only purpose of the cross-appeal is to change (a certain part of) the reasoning of the Court in First Instance, which in its result is in favour of the party filing the cross-appeal. That is the case here. The assessment whether the requirements of urgency have been fulfilled is a necessary part of the appeal. This same issue cannot form the subject of the cross-appeal. The cross-appeal should therefore be declared inadmissible and the Respondents shall bear the costs of the cross-appeal.

IPPT20260416, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
Request for extension of time period for filing Statement of appeal which has not yet started rejected (R. 9.4 RoP, R. 224.1(a) RoP). It follows from R. 9.4 RoP that the Court shall not extend the time period for the Statement of appeal. It can be left open, whether it follows that after the time period for lodging the Statement of appeal has passed, deficiencies in the notice of appeal lodged within the deadline may be remedied only by means of a formal request pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP. This is because the time limit for lodging an appeal has not yet started in the present case. Time period for lodging a Statement of appeal begins to run only when the Court of First Instance (CFI) issues a decision including the reasons.

IPPT20260416, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v TCL
Injunction granted for (partly uncontested) infringement claim (Article 25 UPCA). Parent company liability (Article 25 UPCA).Parent company liability (Article 25 UPCA). Defendant 4 could put an end to the infringing acts of Defendant 3 on the basis of its power to control and instruct its subsidiaries, but did not do so despite being aware of the infringing acts. Accordingly, Defendant 4 was responsible for the infringing acts committed by Defendant 3. Counterclaim for revocation rejected (Article 65 UPCA)(Cfr: IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL Europe v Corning) The Claimant of a Counterclaim for revocation may seek revocation of the entire patent-in-suit, even if the Infringement action is based exclusively on a specific claim. The same applies to national parts of a European patent on which the Infringement action is not based, at least if the patent-in-suit is still in force. The contrary position of the Chinese courts is not relevant and does not alter the validity of the patent. It is not necessary to examine the validity of the dependent claims and there is no valid interest in doing so. Infringement must be specifically contested. A blanket statement that current products do not infringe does not amount to a proper contestation of specific allegations. To rebut infringement, defendants must substantiate that none of their products fall within the claim scope. If a party does not specifically contest alleged facts, the Court shall treat them as established without requiring proof. In this case it does not need to be examined whether evidence meets procedural requirements. R. 171.1 RoP does not apply in that case. It was sufficient that infringement in the past was not disputed; current infringement did not need to be decided.

IPPT20260414, UPC CoA, La Siddhi v Athena Pharma

Request for suspensive effect of security of costs order rejected for lack of exceptional circumstances. (Article 74 UPCA, Article 69 (4) UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 158 RoP). The applicant did not demonstrate: Manifest error in the decision,Irreversible harm or Violation of fundamental procedural rights.

IPPT20260407, UPC CoA, Suinno v Microsoft
€ 600.000 security for costs to be provided by appellant Suinno (Article 69(4) UPCA). Failure to pay previously awarded costs supports the conclusion that recovery of future costs is at risk. Lack of evidence of sufficient financial resources reinforces the need for security for costs. A counterclaim for revocation remains admissible and autonomous even after the infringement action ends, and does not prevent a request for security. Microsoft’s request for a stay dismissed (R. 295(m) RoP). As a general rule, the financial circumstances of the claimant or appellant do not justify a stay of the proceedings unless the requirements of R. 311.1 or .2 RoP are met. That is fair. Regardless of their financial means, every party has the right to have the proceedings carried out in due time. Deadline to file a Statement of response to the grounds of appeal in the appeal proceedings extended until 19 June 2026 (R. 9.3 (a) RoP). Given the uncertainty as to whether Suinno can provide security for costs and the fact that Suinno has also failed to pay the costs of the infringement proceedings, it is, in this exceptional case, justified to extend the time period for filing the Statement of response, as requested. 

IPPT20260403, UPC CoA, Valeo v Bosch

Request for simultaneous interpretation from French to English and vice versa denied. Hearing to be held in English. (Rule 109.2 RoP) Procedural rules must be applied in a flexible and balanced manner, with the requisite degree of discretion. An official representative of the Respondents not having command of the language of the proceedings does not constitute sufficient justification. Simultaneous interpretation would offer no advantage over conducting the hearing in English as the Court, parties and representatives have a good command of both French and English