2026 UPC January

IPPT20260130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Panel review of a judge rapporteur penalty order. (R. 333 RoP) . A penalty order may be issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone. (R. 354.4 RoP, R 1.2(a) RoP). Rule 354.4 RoP makes clear in its last sentence, that “after having heard both parties the Court may make an appropriate order which may be subject to an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.2.”. “The Court” is interpreted pursuant to Rule 1.2(a) RoP , which states that the respective act may be performed by the presiding judge or the judge rapporteur of the panel. Rule 354.4 RoP is the only place, where the Rules refer to “first instance panel of the division” as opposed to “panel of the Court”. The rule wants to make clear, that an enforcement application is to be handled by the same Panel – in the sense of an organizational unit of the CFI – which dealt with the decision on the merits. There is no reason, why an application for enforcement should always be dealt with by the whole panel. Whether the operative part of the panel decision or order has been complied with, can adequately and more efficiently be dealt with, if the Judge rapporteur decides upon the application first and if the Panel only gets involved upon application for review . Any enforcement order may be reviewed by the CoA, but does not exclude a panel review under R. 333 RoP beforehand.  R. 333 RoP does not have to be restricted to “case management decisions or orders” which are of organizational purpose. Rather “case management” can be understood broadly so it also encompasses orders, which deal with if a decision or order has been complied with.

IPPT20260129, UPC CoA, OEFlow v Insulet
No limitation on the use of information received pursuant to a court order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, R. 191 RoP.) without a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP, which applies at least mutatis mutandis. This already follows from the fact that, according to R. 190.1, second sentence, RoP, the Court may for the protection of confidential information, order that the evidence be disclosed to certain named persons only and be subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure. This is also applicable to communication of information “as is specified in Article 67 of the Agreement” pursuant to R. 191 RoP. The same must apply in cases where the court orders the communication of information pursuant to Art. 67 UPCA. For this reason, EOFlow would have been required to submit a R. 262A RoP application

IPPT20260129, UPC CoA, Alpinestars v Dainese
Withdrawal of request for a discretionary review of order of the Milan LD (R. 220.3 RoP). R. 265 RoP applies to discretionary review requests mutatis mutandis. The withdrawal is permitted after a decision on Alpinestars’ request for a discretionary review became obsolete since the Milan LD, by order of 13 January 2026, amended margin no. 3 of its order of 18 November 2025 and granted leave to appeal.

IPPT20260128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Labrador Diagnostics v bioMérieux
Infringement action of an amended patent in a bifurcated case dismissed.  (Article 25 UPCA, Article 33  UPCA). The infringement action is unfounded. The challenged embodiments do not infringe the patent in suit in its form as upheld by the CD Milan. Due to the amendment of the patent by the decision of CD Milan, the Local Division is bound to the new wording of the claims. There is no offering for direct infringement. Since it is not the Defendants who offer to use the method, but the users who implement the method. “Offering for use” aims at the offering of the process implemented by third parties for who the Defendants need to sign responsibility. That is not the case here. In a bifurcated case in which the Court does not find infringement the question of validity of the patent in suit is no longer decisive for the infringement action. (Article 33 UPCA)

IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, CD Paris, ALD France v Nanoval
Panel review confirms dismissal of Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Parent and subsidiary companies are not automatically “same parties” (Article 33(4) UPCA): depends on having the same or independent business activities. The assessment of the unity of the undertaking in the context of an antitrust action is subject to different requirements and must take other interests into account, meaning that the principles developed there are not transferable. The risk of conflicting decisions by the Central Division and the Local Division does not constitute grounds for a stay. (R. 295 (m) RoP). R. R. 295(m) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the right to an effective remedy and to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time The requirement of effective legal protection demands a prompt decision on the action for annulment as well.

IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, President, Nordmeccanica v Bobst Manchester
Language of proceedings changed to language of the patent , namely English. (Article 49 UPCA , Rule 323 RoP).  On the grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances – in particular those related to the case and the respective position of the parties – shall be considered. If the outcome of balancing of interest is equal, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.  (Art. 49 (5) UPCA) 

IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, President, Amazon v InterDigital
Change of language of proceedings from German to English granted. (Art. 49 UPCA , Rule. 323 RoP) . No substantiation of any circumstances which could justify not changing the language of the present proceedings. Order not conditional on specific translation or interpretation arrangements (not requested).

IPPT20260126, UPC CoA, Merz v Viatris
No restriction on use of Exhibit by other party even though uploaded under the Highly Confidential code (R. 262 RoP, R. 262A RoP). Absent a “confidentiality club” (R. 262A RoP), the Court will not treat a document as potentially containing confidential information in the sense of R. 262A RoP. A request made to prevent public access (R. 262 RoP) does not mean access by the other party will be restricted.

IPPT20260126, President UPC CoA, Petitioner v Registrar
Confirmation of registrar’s rejection of application to be entered on the list of representatives on the basis of R. 12.1 EPLC Rules (grandfather’s clause) after expiration of the one-year transitional period (Article 48(3) UPCA, R. 19 EPLC Rules). Neither the EPLC Rules themselves nor the application of said rules by the Registrar of the UPC violate the principles of equality or are discriminatory.

IPPT20260126, UPC CoA, Luxembourg, Ercison v Asustek
Confidentiality club regime to include a licensing bar R. 262A RoP). Confidentiality club regime: proportionality of measures (R. 262A RoP, Article 9(3) Trade Secrets Directive). When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties, and any potential harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures (cf. Art. 9(3) TSD). Confidentiality club membership for legal persons (R. 262A.6 RoP, Article 9(2) Trade Secrets Directive). A legal person should be able to propose a natural person or natural persons to ensure proper representation of that legal person. Access of that natural person to be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that person in the proceedings before this Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person. The fact that a person is an employee of a party is, as a general rule, not sufficient to deny access to that person.  Access for a party’s employee will often be essential to ensure compliance with the right of that party to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. aving full access for, at least, one of its employees, as a general rule, outweighs the interests of the applicant, even if imposing a EEO regime would be preferable from the perspective of safeguarding confidentiality. Confidentiality club membership and confidential FRAND licensing details. The fact that employees cannot unlearn information justifies the possibility of a temporary licensing bar preventing these employees from being involved in patent licensing negotiations with the third parties concerned. 

IPPT20260126, UPC CoA, Sun v Vivo
Application for ‘External Eyes Only’ confidentiality club rejected (R. 262A RoP). Inadmissible requests by intervener that do not support SUN PATENT’s appeal and requests (R. 313.2 RoP). Requests which go beyond the scope defined by the Court and beyond the mere support of existing requests are inadmissible. Trade Secrets Directive not directly applicable to patent law proceedings before this court (R. 262A RoP). Concerns only the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets and does not provide for measures to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets in other types of court proceedings. When interpreting R. 262A RoP, the Court of Appeal will use principles similar to the principles underlying the Trade Secrets Directive. Confidentiality club regime: proportionality of measures (R. 262A RoP, Article 9(3) Trade Secrets Directive). When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties, and any potential harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures (cf. Art. 9(3) TSD). Confidentiality club membership for legal persons (R. 262A.6 RoP, Article 9(2) Trade Secrets Directive). A legal person should be able to propose a natural person or natural persons to ensure proper representation of that legal person. Access of that natural person to be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that person in the proceedings before this Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person. The fact that a person is an employee of a party is, as a general rule, not sufficient to deny access to that person.  Access for a party’s employee will often be essential to ensure compliance with the right of that party to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. aving full access for, at least, one of its employees, as a general rule, outweighs the interests of the applicant, even if imposing a EEO regime would be preferable from the perspective of safeguarding confidentiality. Confidentiality club membership and confidential FRAND licensing details. The fact that employees cannot unlearn information justifies the possibility of a temporary licensing bar preventing these employees from being involved in patent licensing negotiations with the third parties concerned. Liability and penalties for breach of confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP). No liability of the UPC representative of a party in the event of a breach of a duty of confidentiality. A penalty payment may be imposed on a party to the proceedings. It does not release said representative from its obligation to ensure that that each member of the legal team is bound by the provisions of the confidentiality order and also does not release him or her from its rights and obligations under the UPC Agreement and the Rules of Procedure. ailing which the Court may exclude said representative from the proceedings by way or order under the conditions set forth under R. 291.1 RoP.
 

IPPT20260123, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon Beheer v Inverquark
No basis for ordering a supplementary expert opinion following a detailed expert description regarding an ex-parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196.4 RoP, Rule 197 RoP, Rule 199 RoP) It is incompatible to reach a decision on the timely release of the expert’s detailed description by requesting clarification of factual accuracy of the prepared description. Protection of the respondent does not require the obtaining of a supplementary expert opinion. Unredacted version of the expert’s description to be disclosed to the applicant in the absence of any confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent. (Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20260123, UPC CFI LD Paris, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
Patent valid and not infringed. Application for provisional measures rejected. (Art. 25 UPCA. Rule 211 RoP). No unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures. (R. 211.4 RoP). The starting point for the reasonable delay in seeking provisional measures is the date on which a correspondence began between the parties on the subject of the present dispute. The Court considers that a three-month period constitutes a reasonable delay to prepare action by gathering the necessary evidence, given that the case involves several patents and a complex and sophisticated technology. Added Matter (Article 123 EPC). The patent and dependent Claims 2 to 14 of the patent are more likely than not to be invalid because of added-matter. The Court must ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using their common general knowledge, as seen objectively with respect to the date of filing, from the whole PCT application as filed. On the basis of this, implicitly disclosed subject-matter shall also be considered as part of its content. However, the content of an application must not be considered to be a reservoir from which features pertaining to separate embodiments of the application could be combined in order to artificially create a particular embodiment. The invention as now worded in the granted Claim 1 cannot directly and unambiguously be derived from the patent as filed. Allegations of infringement by GUARDANT HEALTH suffer from a "lack of evidence": The burden of proof for the alleged infringement lies with the party invoking it .  (Art. 25 UPCA , R. 211.2 RoP). Applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence of an infringement of the patent by "DDM access" with a sufficient degree of certainty . It is not sufficient to rely mainly on a press release to demonstrate how SOPHIA GENETICS's software processes data.

IPPT20260121, UPC CoA, Valeo v Bosch
Respondents invited to submit within seven days comments on the admissibility of an appeal on the basis of R. 220.2 RoP  of an order allowing a Preliminary Objection (R. 21 RoP, R. 220 RoP, Article 73 UPCA). Time limit filing Statement of Defence suspended (R. 235 RoP)

IPPT20260121, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bosch v Valeo

Jurisdiction and competence of the court. (Article 33 UPCA). CD Paris lacks jurisdiction to hear the infringement action against defendants not named in the previous order. (Article 33 (1) UPCA). Although the order was issued without hearing two companies, it took into account the situation corresponding to multiple defendants, some of whom are established or domiciled in the contracting member states and others established or domiciled outside those states.

IPPT20260120, UPC CFI, President, Pinterest v Nagravision
Change of language of the proceedings into the language of the patent (English) allowed.  (Art. 49 (5) UPCA ,Rule. 323 RoP) . The need of several Defendants to communicate and coordinate the dispute should be given due consideration in addition to domiciliation of the parties. The drawback of speed and efficiency being affected if proceedings are not conducted in the usual working language,  is of particular importance in identifying a fairness issue considering the strict time limits set by the rules of procedure. 

IPPT20260126, UPC CoA, Sun v Vivo
Application for ‘External Eyes Only’ confidentiality club rejected (R. 262A RoP). Inadmissible requests by intervener that do not support SUN PATENT’s appeal and requests (R. 313.2 RoP). Requests which go beyond the scope defined by the Court and beyond the mere support of existing requests are inadmissible. Trade Secrets Directive not directly applicable to patent law proceedings before this court (R. 262A RoP). Concerns only the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets and does not provide for measures to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets in other types of court proceedings. When interpreting R. 262A RoP, the Court of Appeal will use principles similar to the principles underlying the Trade Secrets Directive. Confidentiality club regime: proportionality of measures (R. 262A RoP, Article 9(3) Trade Secrets Directive). When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties, and any potential harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures (cf. Art. 9(3) TSD). Confidentiality club membership for legal persons (R. 262A.6 RoP, Article 9(2) Trade Secrets Directive). A legal person should be able to propose a natural person or natural persons to ensure proper representation of that legal person. Access of that natural person to be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that person in the proceedings before this Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person. The fact that a person is an employee of a party is, as a general rule, not sufficient to deny access to that person.  Access for a party’s employee will often be essential to ensure compliance with the right of that party to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. aving full access for, at least, one of its employees, as a general rule, outweighs the interests of the applicant, even if imposing a EEO regime would be preferable from the perspective of safeguarding confidentiality. Confidentiality club membership and confidential FRAND licensing details. The fact that employees cannot unlearn information justifies the possibility of a temporary licensing bar preventing these employees from being involved in patent licensing negotiations with the third parties concerned. Liability and penalties for breach of confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP). No liability of the UPC representative of a party in the event of a breach of a duty of confidentiality. A penalty payment may be imposed on a party to the proceedings. It does not release said representative from its obligation to ensure that that each member of the legal team is bound by the provisions of the confidentiality order and also does not release him or her from its rights and obligations under the UPC Agreement and the Rules of Procedure. ailing which the Court may exclude said representative from the proceedings by way or order under the conditions set forth under R. 291.1 RoP.

IPPT20260119, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Huawei v HMD Global
Further confidentiality measures ordered (Rule 262A RoP). Protection extended to future submissions dealing with FRAND licence negotiations between parties to avoid identical orders after each submission. Covers if confidential information should be discussed in an oral hearing or repeated in a decision on the merits. 
 

IPPT20260116, UPC CoA, Amycel
Suspensive effect appeal rejected (R. 223 RoP). The Applicant has merely claimed that the sending of registered letters (part III of the impugned decision) would be impossible to revert and that the publication of a message on the website of the Applicant (part IV of the impugned decision) would entail "irreversible consequences”, without establishing that the impugned decision is manifestly erroneous. Even if the Court were to accept that the consequences of these orders are not fully reversible, it does not follow that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect and that the Applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on appeal outweighs Amycel's legitimate interest informing the Applicant’s customers of the decision.

IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock 
Unitary patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted.(Article 63 UPCA)  Inventive step - common general knowledge of the skilled person (Article 56 EPC) Documents not part of common general knowledge : Document not sufficiently widely disseminated to form part of the basic knowledge of a person skilled in the art.  If they constitute specialized literature, and it has not been established that they are documents forming part of the basic technical background . Infringement.  (Article 25 UPCA, Rule 263 RoP) of unconditionally amended claims 1 and 6 of the unitary patent , reproduced in entirety. Cross border injunction for infringement of Swiss part of European patent, denied. (Article 4 Brussels  Regulation) Infringement of the national part of the European patent granted by a state outside the UPC is assesed in light of the european patent as originally granted. The Local Division is unable to assess the substance of the alleged infringement of the Swiss portion of the patent and cannot stay proceedings, in the absence of pending invalidity proceedings in Switzerland. A unitary patent takes effect retroactively, (Articles 64(1) , 68 EPC , Article 4(1) Unitary patent regulation) as of the date of the European patent became a unitary patent, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 64(1) and 68 of the EPC and Article 4(1) of the Unitary patent regulation.  Furthermore, the patent as granted, so long as it has not been judicially invalidated, is deemed valid from the date of its grant. Defendant cannot rely on exempting itself from liability on grounds that it did not know or had no reasonable grounds to know it was infringing (Article 68(4) UPCA) when, on the one hand, it exploited the product alleged to be infringing without taking any steps to revoke the patent, and, on the other hand, that it could not rule out the possibility of a subsequent limitation of the patent  which is conflicting with the statement of defence, made prior to the amendment to the patent. 

IPPT20260115, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) The law prioritizes registration over the entitlement where a claimant wants to obtain a decision to remove the effects of a granted patent (Rule 8.6 RoP, Rule. 25 RoP) .  It is for the registered proprietor and the entitled proprietor to apply to the Court for the substitution of the registered proprietor in a situation of non-identity (Rule 42.2, 61.2 RoP). Different situation in a case of a counterclaim of revocation where entitlement of the registered person is effectively rebutted in the infringement action and the question of the entitlement is decisive for the infringement. No direct infringement because not every claimed component is shown. (Article. 25 UPCA) If a product consists of different components, the alleged infringing product must show every claimed component. Cases where only certain features of a product are infringed may be examples for an indirect infringement (Article. 26 UPCA), but not for direct infringement.  Order of judge rapporteur not allowing the exchange of further written pleading and not allowing late amendment of the case to include indirect infringement confirmed by panel (Rule. 36 RoP, Rule. 263 RoP, Rule. 333.2 and 333.3 RoP) 
 

IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Heraeus v Vibrantz
Re-establishment of rights granted in the context of a failure to observe a time limit for initiating a procedure for cost decision in the context of a cost ratio. ( Rule 320 RoP , Rule 151 RoP) Dissenting opinion issued pursuant to Article. 36 Statute of the UPC & Article 78 UPCA. Claimant missed the application deadline (Rule 151 RoP). Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge within the time limit an application for a decision on their respective costs. By contrast, it is the opinion of the majority of the panel that the possibility for the other party to comment is limited to raising objections to the cost items listed by the applicant party - such objections cannot form the basis for offsetting the other party’s own regularly incurred cost items. (Rule 156.1 RoP). Where a party has failed to observe a time limit, despite all due care having been taken, the relevant panel of the Court may upon the request of that party re-establish the right or means of redress. (Rule 320.1 RoP). The requirement of “all due care” is in principle met if the party has taken all reasonable precautions to enable it to meet the deadline and the deadline was missed for a reason beyond the party's control , this includes knowledge of the legal system and the relevant decisions. A represented party must assume responsibility for any fault on the part of their UPC representative. Inadequate knowledge of the law is generally not sufficient grounds for re-establishment of rights. However, the Claimant – exceptionally – cannot be accused of misjudging the legal situation in the specific circumstances of the case at hand, despite being represented by a lawyer. Dissenting opinion of Judge Brinkman disagreeing  with the narrow interpretation of the regulations.  (Article. 36 of The Statute of The Unified Patent Court, Article 78 UPCA,  Article 69 UPCA ) . The application to be inadmissible due to a lack of legal interest – application should be admitted in the cost proceedings, thus making re-establishment of rights unnecessary and devoid of legal interest. It is clear from the Rules of Procedure and Article 69 UPCA that a “cost decision” means a decision on the reimbursement of costs. However, in this case the Claimant is not requesting a cost decision, they are only requesting that their 40% portion be used as a deduction from the amount they have to pay to the Defendants 

IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE Corporation v Samsung Electronics
Defendant’s request for extending written procedure dismissed. (Rule . 36 RoP). There is no reason apparent why Samsung’s right to be heard necessitates extending the written procedure. The oral hearing is already scheduled to take place in approximately two months, so that the conclusion of the written proceedings must not be delayed. Confidentiality club granted in part, for the production request and the third-party licence agreement. (Rule . 262A RoP.) The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to Samsung and to its licensee. The protection relates to the specific information only -  the abstract FRAND discussion will take place publicly. 

IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Emboline v AorticLab
Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement; device normally operated in a non-infringing manner (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement is not excluded by the fact that a device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and customers therefore do not regularly make use of the patented teaching, as long as the use of the patented teaching remains possible when using the device. In the case of a medical device, however, the possibility of an irregular but patent compliant use can only be considered as patent infringement if such use is in line with professional practice and the recognised rules of medical science. Admissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (only if the patent is found infringed) (R. 25 RoP). The unconditional transition from a counterclaim to a dependent counterclaim, which is dependent on the occurrence of an intra-procedural condition (i.e. a finding of patent infringement by the Court), means that the counterclaim is limited in accordance with Rule 263.3 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP).If, in accordance with the counterclaimant’s request, no decision is made on the Counterclaim, the counterclaimant must bear the costs for the counterclaim (Article 69(3) UPCA).

IPPT20260112, UPC CFI, CD Paris, WhiteWater v American Wave
Decision by default (Rule 355 RoP). Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Claim 1 lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) Feature 4 of claim 1; “valve structure (24, 26, 28): The language of feature 4 makes clear that only two valves are mandatory, a gas supply valve (26) and a vent valve (28).  This is confirmed by the patent specification. Interpreting feature 3 of claim 1 using dependent claim 3: Although claim 3 is not subject to this revocation action, its dependency on claim 1 implies that claim 1 encompasses embodiments where the controller is partly located at the facility and partly at a remote location. Lack of inventive step – technical contribution (Article 56 EPC). When assessing inventive step, only the features that contribute to the technical effect shall be taken into consideration. D3 provides the skilled person with a clear incentive to equip the apparatus of D1 with a mobile application controller that performs the sequence of feature 2.2, featuring a software interface that enables users to create wave profiles, according to feature 3. Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether the mere addition of a wave creation module constitutes a technical contribution. Since the user selects the parameters according to their personal preferences this choice does not appear to produce a further technical effect on the apparatus’s operation beyond what is already achieved according to a pre-programmed wave profile. 
 

IPPT20260109, UPC COA, Juul Labs v NJOY
Withdrawal of the appeal against revocation permitted, proceedings closed.  (Rule. 370 RoP). R. 370.9 (b) RoP has been amended from 1 January 2026, providing for reimbursement of court fees with 50 % in case of the withdrawal of an action before the closure of the written procedure instead of, as previously, 60 %. The entry into force provides that amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2026. The amendments apply only to those actions and applications filed after 31 December 2025. 

IPPT20260107, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno 

European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA)  Added subject matter (Article 138 EPC) . The removal or replacement of a feature is not considered added-subject matter if the feature is not described as being essential in the application. Any features which, even if mentioned throughout the application in the context of the invention, do not actually contribute to the solution of the technical problem are not essential features. Feature 1.2 : using several techniques of location simultaneously is not provided by the application which discloses the use of a single technique at a time , but not the three techniques or two of them at the same time.  Feature 1.4 : ranking involves a comparison between time-dependent and time-independent click-through rates , is not disclosed by the content of the application. The application only discloses that click through rates may be stored as a function of the location or the time of the query and, thus, not as a factor which is independent of these criteria. Inventive Step (Article 56 EPC)  For completeness claim 1 also lacks inventive step in view of the document ’BP07’ completed with the teaching of the document BP08’. Application to amend patent (Article 123 (2) EPC, Rule 30 RoP) . Auxiliary Requests II – XVII not admissible as they not compliant with the requirements of Rule 30 (1) 'RoP' and don't enable the Court to unambiguously understand the scope of the proposed amendments . The Auxiliary Request is unable to remedy the detected defect, the patent remains invalid even in the formulation proposed by the Auxiliary Request. The defendant in a counterclaim for revocation is entitled to amend the patent, provided the relevant application is included in the statement of defence (or meets the filing deadline for this application) and contains the information referred to in Rule 30 ‘RoP’. This includes the language of the application, an indication of whether the amendments are conditional or unconditional, and an explanation of how the amendments comply with Articles 84 and 123 (2) (3) ‘EPC’ and why the proposed amended claims are valid. Rule 30 (1) (c) also requires that the proposed amendments must be reasonable in number in the circumstances of the case. Failure to reach the requirements leads to inadmissibility of the application. Requirements objective in character: the deadline within which the application must be filed, must contain at least one amendment, and that the same (or the same amendments) must be formulated in the language of the patent . Conversely, matters of judicial discretion are the assessment of clarity, sufficiency of the explanation regarding validity and infringement, and the reasonableness of the number of amendments. Necessity for consolidated documents where the proposed amendments have a significant impact on the patent.  A request for the deletion of one or more claims may not require the concurrent submission of a document containing the full set of the claims. Content of the patent is the responsibility of the applicant, no manipulative intervention by the Court is permitted, or, no assistance may be provided by the Court to the party in producing a clear and intelligible draft . 

IPPT20260106, UPC COA, Angelalign v Align Technology
Request for discretionary review of procedural order dismissed. (Rule 220 RoP). A request for discretionary review can only be allowed after the other party has been heard pursuant to R. 220.4 Rop. If allowed, this sets in motion a procedural appeal under a procedural appeal under R. 220.2 RoP. Giving Align a shorter period to submit its comments to the request , than the time taken by Angelalign is contrary to the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity. The exclusion of arguments and evidence by the CFI is not an error per se. The possibility to disregard late-filed arguments and evidence also applies to proceedings for provisional measures. The requirement to justify a discretionary review in a way that enables the Respondent to prepare its response and enables the CoA to decide without further information is not met .

IPPT20260105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communication
Decision on reimbursement of representation costs to the Defendant in appeal proceedings concerning the service of the statement of claim. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 152 RoP, Rule 220 RoP) 
Proportional reduction of attorney's fees by two-thirds (Art. 48 (4) UPCA.). Procedural issue did not require the involvement of more than one lawyer, whereas 3 were hired. The involvement of a patent attorney for a non-technical question is not appropriate . Upper limit for reimbursable representation costs is not applicable in appeal proceedings ,a higher reimbursement of attorney's feesis not justified for for procedural issues. Value of Eur 1.5 million set for the infringement proceedings is irrelevant ; the appeal concerns only a fraction of this amount .