2026 UPC March

IPPT20260331, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Infoblox v Nixu

Uniform deadline set for all Defendants uniformly, for the lodging Statement of defence and a possible Counterclaim for revocation. (Rule 9 RoP , Rule 24 RoP). Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the request for alignment of time limit is reasonable.The claimant has to bear the risk of deviating service dates, if it waited to arrange payment for service in the U.S. in due course after the request of the sub-registry. While a claimant is not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it remains in its own interest to cooperate with the court's registry as quickly as possible[…]. 

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Sinocare v Abbott
Jurisdiction (Article 31 UPCA). By not contesting the jurisdiction and competence of the Court in First Instance, the Appellant (Defendant in first instance) has in principle foregone this opportunity on appeal and cannot raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction and competence as a ground for overturning the impugned order (Article 26(1) Brussels I Recast and R. 19.7 RoP). […] by manufacturing, preparing and selling its GlucoMen iCan products intended for the European market, the likelihood of damage arose from the possibility of third parties obtaining these products in the Contracting Member States, including in the Netherlands.  This provides basis for accepting jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 71(b)(2) and Art. 7(2) BR. Review first instance procedural errors in appeal (Article 73 UPCA). The Appellants have not shown that any of the alleged procedural errors resulted in an incorrect decision by the LD. This is for the Appellants to demonstrate and already for this reason, the alleged procedural errors cannot result in setting aside the Order. Definition of skilled person is a question of law (Article 56 EPC). The definition of a skilled person is a question of law, not a statement of fact. Claim construction (Article 69 EPC. R. 171.2 RoP). Claim construction is a matter of law, not a matter of fact […]. R. 171.2 RoP is therefore not applicable here. In general, a claim is not limited to the embodiments described in the patent. Embodiments are included in the patent description to explain and clarify the claimed invention, not to limit the claim to the specifics of the described embodiment. New submission in appeal on added matter refused (R. 222.2 RoP, Article 138(1)(c) EPC). When exercising its discretion, the Court of Appeal can take into account the justification by the party bringing forward the new submission and the relevance of the new submission for the decision in appeal. Although the Appellants were not aware of the reasoning of the LD when preparing their Objection in first instance, they were aware of Respondent’s position that claim 1 also covers a seal that encloses only one side of the contacts portion. The LD has generally accepted this view and merely refers to claims 4 and 5 as a confirmation of this interpretation. Sufficient disclosure (Article 138(1)(b) EPC). The test to be applied 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. Inventive step – no incentive and no pointer (Article 56 EPC). The skilled person had no incentive to adapt the sensor system of US833 and had no pointer to adjust this system to obtain the patented sensor system with the advantages described in the patent at issue. Provisional measures – no unreasonable delay (R. 211 RoP, R. 206.2(d) RoP). Unreasonable delay: the time limit within the meaning of R. 211.4 RoP is to be calculated from the date on which the applicant became 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. Thus, the decisive point in time is when the applicant has, or should have had, after exercising due diligence, the necessary facts and evidence to establish infringement within the meaning of R. 206.2(d) RoP. The patent was granted on 4 June 2025 and obtained unitary effect on 18 June 2025. The Application was filed one month after the grant of the patent and about two weeks after obtaining unitary effect. This in and of itself already shows that the Respondent acted swiftly after obtaining (unitary) patent protection. Why provisional measures are necessary (R. 206.2(c) RoP). Provisional measures will be necessary, for instance, where any delay would cause irreparable harm to the patent holder. Irreparable harm is, however, not a necessary condition for the ordering of provisional measures. The necessity of provisional measures may also follow from the fact that there is direct competition between the attacked embodiment and the product of the patent holder. In those cases, granting provisional measures may be justified if they are necessary in order to maintain the status quo that existed immediately prior to the alleged infringement until the decision of the Court on the merits. The necessity for provisional measures may arise in a move from a market situation where only one product is available to one where there are two such competing products. Such a move can be expected to lead not just to price pressure but to a permanent price erosion. Generally worded injunction (Article 62(1) UPCA, R. 211.1(a) RoP). Absent specific circumstances, in case infringement is held to exist with respect to a particular embodiment, a generally worded injunction may be issued. This is generally justified and has the benefit that if, for example, the infringing product is slightly changed or similar products would be introduced on the market under a different name, these products are covered by the issued injunction. With the clarification by the Respondent that the Sinocare iCan i3 is not covered by the preliminary injunction, there is no enforcement or other risk that would justify deviating from the general approach to issue a generally worded injunction in case of patent infringement.
 

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Application filed with the Court of Appeal for the determination of costs dismissed. (R. 150 RoP). Proceedings for cost determination under R. 150 ff. RoP must be initiated before the Court of First Instance (-=CFI), even where they relate to appeal costs. This also applies where the application relates exclusively or in part to the costs of the appeal proceedings.

IPPT20260330, UPC CoA, Amazon v InterDigital
A party or its representative may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing, based on an audio recording pursuant  R. 115 RoP. 

IPPT20260326, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Quinn Emanuel v Huawei
Inadmissible application panel review (R. 333.1 RoP) of a decision of the judge-rapporteur under R. 262.1(b) RoP as R. 262.1(b) RoP does not provide for any transfer of competence from the panel to the judge-rapporteur, and therefore no review of the (delegated) decision of the judge-rapporteur by the panel is warranted. For the training and advisory interest of a law firm justifying third-party access to the file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, an abstract assessment is required. Therefore, it is generally sufficient that the requested access can objectively serve to satisfy the interest in obtaining information for training and advisory purposes. This interest exists independently of whether the Court could be scrutinised through access to the files. 

IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, Onward v Niche
Appeal dismissed of rejection of provisional measures (Article 62 UPCA, R. 206 RoP, R. 211 RoP). Admissibility of auxiliary requests in provisional measures proceedings (R. 30 RoP, R. 222 RoP). Asserting a patent in an amended (non-granted) form is not automatically inadmissible and depends on the circumstances of the case. Whether such amended claims are suitable is assessed in light of the expedited and limited nature of preliminary injunction proceedings. Parties may file auxiliary requests, but their admissibility depends on procedural rules and timing. The admission of new (auxiliary) requests in appeal proceedings is subject to the court’s discretion under R. 222 RoP. Claim interpretation (Article 69 UPCA). Even though not linked by the word ‘and’ the pattern as claimed requires both (at least one) spatial component and (at least one) temporal component to be present.  However, the mention of both components, the use of the word ‘comprise’ and the clause in feature 6.2 relating to the temporal component, which refers to the previously described (at least one) spatial component, make it clear that both components are essential for characterising a design.” Direct Infringement (Article 25 UPCA) requires that all claim features are present when the product is offered or marketed. The accused device was only programmed later by medical professionals, so the required features were not present at the relevant time. Uncertain that users will configure the system in an infringing way. Indirect infringement (Article 26 UPCA). Intended use: The intended use pursuant may be determined and presumed on the basis of objective circumstances if such circumstances exist that allow for the sufficiently certain conclusion that the product offered or delivered is intended to be used by the recipient of the offer or the recipient of the delivery for the purpose of utilizing the invention. Insufficient evidence that users intended or were instructed to use the product in an infringing way. Intended use can be inferred from objective circumstances such as instructions, product design, or actual use. The manuals did not clearly teach or recommend an infringing configuration. The device could be used in non-infringing ways, weakening any inference of intent.

IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
Finding of infringement set aside (Article 25 UPCA). Functional claim interpretation “housing longitudinally fixed to an upper side of drive unit, so as to […]” (Article 69 EPC). According to the wording of the claim, the feature according to which the housing has to be longitudinally fixed to an upper side of the drive unit shall be considered in conjunction with the specified function claimed therein, [...]. It follows that the longitudinal fixation of the housing to an upper side of the drive unit not only requires the housing to be assembled or positioned in a longitudinal direction. It further requires, unlike assessed by the CFI (impugned decision, para. 76), that the fixation prevents vertical lifting of the housing or the screw against the drive unit, thus encompassing a fixation against vertical lifting. No infringement because feature [1N] is not fully implemented by the attacked embodiment (Article 25 UPCAA). HUROM has not established that the housing is connected to the drive unit by way of a longitudinal fixation which may prevent the housing from being moved away from the drive unit when pressing, grinding and extracting juice from material put into the inlet port. No tacit acceptance of jurisdiction, notwithstanding R. 19.7 RoP (Article 26 Brussels I regulation) by contesting jurisdiction in first defence, without having filed a preliminary objection. “Entering appearance” (Article 26 Brussels I regulation) is only when the defendant lodges its first statement, by filing a Preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19 RoP as to the issues listed in R. 19.1 and .4 RoP or, if not, the Statement of defence pursuant to R. 23 ff. RoP as to the substance of the dispute, that he will have deliberately chosen or contested the international jurisdiction of the court seized instead of the court which would normally have jurisdiction under the provisions laid down in the Brussels Regulation.

IPPT20260326, UPC CFI, CD Paris, IMI v Belparts

Joint withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for infringement on reaching settlement. (Rule 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260325, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hoffman-La Roche v Menarini

Joint withdrawal of infringement action on reaching settlement. (Rule 265.1, 2 RoP)

IPPT20260325, UPC CoA, Sanofi & Regeneron v Amgen
IPPT20260324, UPC CoA, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP).

IPPT20260324, UPC CoA, Alpina Coffee v CUP&CINO

Request for suspensive effect rejected due to lack of exceptional circumstances (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 223.1 RoP). Appellant has not argued that the decision is manifestly flawed,  or that the decision is based on a breach of a fundamental procedural right. In the application for suspensive effect, appellant does not address the contested decision and/or the proceedings before the Local Chamber at all. Possible future developments such as outcomes of parallel proceedings cannot justify suspensive effect. The possibility of additional infringements or parallel findings cannot justify delaying enforcement.

IPPT20260324, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Reel v Fives

Preliminary objection on jurisdiction rejected (Article 32 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA, Rule 19.1 RoP). Grounds of lack of standing and res judicata, have no bearing on the court’s subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction and are not included in the list of preliminary objections in Rule 19.1 RoP, which must be regarded as exhaustive

IPPT20260324, UPC CoA, Applicant v Amycell
Inadmissible second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP). The principle that parties shall set out their full case as early as possible in the proceedings (RoP, Preamble, paragraph 7, last sentence) also applies to applications for suspensive effect. This means that an application for suspensive effect must set out all the reasons, facts, evidence and arguments on which the applicant wishes to rely. Any subsequent application for suspensive effect will be inadmissible, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the new application is based on submissions that could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.

IPPT20260323, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Valeo v Robert Bosch
Panel review confirming dismissal of preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP). Competence in case of multiple defendants (Article 33.1(b) UPCA). The commercial link between the defendants does not require a direct commercial link between the so-called ‘anchor’ defendant and each of the other defendants, but rather a commercial link between all the defendants. The condition that ‘the action concerns the same infringement’, refers to the infringement of the same patent by all the defendants, and does not require that the products alleged to be infringing be identical across all the defendants.

IPPT20260320, UPC CFI, President, HyGear v Topsoe

Language of proceedings changed from German to English by party consent (Article 49 (5) UPCA, Rule 323.1. RoP). 

IPPT20260319, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Sichuan

Inspection of seized product samples to be conducted in the presence of both parties at oral hearing. (Article 59 UPCA, Article 60 UPCA, Rule 199 RoP). Without the cutting and dissection operations previously indicated in the order of February 13, 2026.

IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Veolia v Tiru

Patent valid in amended form (Article 65 UPCA, Article 123 (3) EPC ). Claim Interpretation (Article 69 EPC). A claim must be interpreted as a whole, in a logical and consistent manner. Nothing would lead a person skilled in the art reading this claim to believe that [….] each time the word “air” appears, they are free to consider the various options independently of the other instances. The text of the claim takes precedence over the description in the interpretation of a claim where there are certain contradictions between the description and a claim of the patent, and a person skilled in the art would readily identify these contradictions. Amendments – impermissible extension of protection (Article 123 (3) EPC) Claim 1 - main request extends beyond patent as granted. It is sufficient to identify an embodiment covered by the amended patent but not covered by the granted patent to conclude that there has been an impermissible extension of protection. Scenario 4 is covered by claim 1 of the main request, whereas it was not covered by claim 1 of the issued patent, therefore, the scope of protection has been unlawfully extended. Amendments of auxiliary claims 1.1, 1.3, 1.6 (based on the main request) admissible as correction of obvious clerical errors- but rejected. (Rule 30 RoP). The correction of obvious clerical errors in the relevant documents at the first opportunity, does not constitute a new ground and is admissible. Having regard in particular to the second recital of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure, the absence of a specific rule concerning a party’s ability to correct an obvious error does not imply that such a correction would be prohibited in proceedings before the UPC.

 IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Cup&Cino v Alpina

Patent valid and infringed (Article 65 UPCA , Article 25(a) UPCA , Article 26 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted for recall and destruction of goods. (Article 63(1) UPCA) the defendant markets and uses the invention of the patent. Advertising materials are excluded from destruction (Article 64 (2)(e) UPCA) because they are not covered by the wording of the law. The term “equipment” in Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA refers to materials and equipment used in the manufacture of the products. Purely promotional materials that merely depict the contested embodiments are not covered.

IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, GC Aesthetics v Establishment Labs

Request for security for costs granted against Costa Rican defendant. (Rule 158.1 RoP, Article 69 (4) UPCA). Enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica not considered to be “unduly burdensome”. The assessment to be made is whether “similar or identical” guarantees are in place for recognising and enforcing UPC costs orders in the relevant (non EU/EEA) states. The court requires a standard/reference to assess whether the duration leads proceedings to be "unduly" burdensome, as this implies a standard/reference in the sense of proceeding being "duly" burdensome. As such, where duration alone might not be sufficient to establish “undue burden, it could be taken into consideration when assessing the facts and circumstances regarding the assessment of the concerns of the Defendants. When setting the security amount, consideration should be given to the costs likely to be incurred by introducing the counterclaim for revocation

IPPT20260316, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, TRUMPF v IPG Laser

Patent valid and infringed. Permanent injunction granted (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA , Article 63(1) UPCA). Infringement : Direct, literal use of the teaching of claim 2 (coupled in lasers) of the contested patent. (Article 25 UPCA). The embodiment features a switchable device with at least two switching positions within the meaning of feature 2.2.Offer and supply of contested embodiment within the meaning of Article 26(1) UPCA. (Article 26 UPCA)

IPPT20260316, UPC CoA, Vivo v Sun Patent
The Court of First Instance has case management discretion to either decide on the Preliminary objection as soon as practicable or decide to deal with the Preliminary objection in the main proceedings (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP, R. 102.1 RoP, R. 331.1 RoP). The decision to deal with the Preliminary objection in the main proceedings may be taken either by the judge-rapporteur, as laid down in R. 20.2 RoP, or by the panel if the judge-rapporteur has decided to refer the matter to the panel to decide. R. 102.1 RoP on the interim procedure shall apply applies mutatis mutandis to the written procedure where the judge-rapporteur, after his assignment to the case by the presiding judge pursuant to R. 18 RoP, is likewise tasked with the management of the case, including case management decisions or orders relating to a Preliminary objection. Limited review in appeal (Article 73 UPCA)  Considering that the CFI has a margin of discretion […] the review by the Court of Appeal is limited. If, within this limited scope of review, it is established that the CFI erred in using its discretion, for example by misusing or exceeding its discretion, the order must be set aside. The LD Paris has not misused or exceeded its margin of discretion in deciding to defer the decision on the admissibility of claim A.II (FRAND) of the SoC to the main proceedings. There are sound reasons of case management efficiency for the admissibility of claim A.II to be dealt with in the main proceedings. Follows from Statement of claim that the claimed determination of a FRAND offer is only incidental or dependant on infringement.

IPPT20260316, UPC CoA, Ecovacs v Roborock
Revocation of ex parte inspection order confirmed. Duty to disclose any known material fact which might influence the Court (R. 192.3 RoP). Is there so that the Court can take due account of the interests of both parties, in spite of having to rely only on the facts presented in the Application. Representatives are generally obliged not to misrepresent facts (R. 284 RoP). Imposes a heightened requirement where the applicant must disclose, and not leave out, any material facts that might be relevant for an ex parte order. This includes (for example) facts that may be relevant for the proportionality assessment. Ex tunc review: Omissions and distorted accounts of material facts which might be of central importance for the Local Division’s assessment on whether to allow the request at all cannot be compensated or circumvented by later submissions. The possibility that other grounds might have existed cannot retroactively justify the Application. Facts introduced later by the applicant in support of the Application shall be disregarded on review. Proportionality of ex parte preservation of evidence (R. 1971. RoP). When R. 197.1 RoP is applied, it entails a proportionality test in the strict sense; meaning that a balancing is conducted with reference to the facts of the case. This involves weighing opposing interests. The weighing will normally come down to determining whether the requests are within a meaningful range, or if the operative part of the order must be limited in relation to what is requested to ensure proportionality. In rare cases this could result in denying the measures altogether, for example if the evidence to be preserved can be obtained in a less intrusive manner, rendering the sought measures disproportionate. Similarly, requests that are of a more speculative nature (fishing expeditions) in relation to the reasonably available evidence in support of the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed, should be denied. Subject matter of appeal (R. 222.1 RoP). As regards submissions in other proceedings, such as proceedings on the merits, the Court is under no obligation to consult other casefiles. No CJEU referral possible (Article 21 UPCA). The UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the RoP. A request for a preliminary ruling must concern the interpretation or validity of EU law, not the interpretation of rules of national law or issues of fact raised in the proceedings. The RoP are procedural rules that can be equated with national procedural law in this respect.

IPPT20260318, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
Trade secrets or other confidential information ae no longer trade secrets or other confidential information if they are disclosed to the other party without an order pursuant to R. 262A RoP, or without any other restriction, for example an agreement between the parties or a voluntary undertaking. A request under R. 262.2 RoP does not automatically lead to protection against the other party disclosing the information. Only a R. 262A RoP application allows the Court to restrict the use of confidential information by the other party. Once the information has been communicated by serving the briefs without any restriction (….), it is no longer confidential. 

IPPT20260313, UPC CFI CD Milan, La Siddhi v Athena
Order to provide security for costs of € 75.000 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Once the defendant substantiates the risk, the claimant must rebut it with concrete evidence. Low net assets created doubt about ability to pay costs. The claimant did not properly contest the financial evidence. SME status does not exempt a party from security orders and the SME status must be substantiated.

IPPT20260313, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Neurocrine v Spruce

Revocation action disposed on becoming devoid of purpose. (Rule 360 RoP) Patent revoked ab initio (Article 101.2 EPC). Patent revoked by the Opposition Division of the EPO after the filing of the defence to the revocation action. Claimant’s request to declare the revocation action devoid of purpose, under the condition that the defendant makes a non-confidential undertaking that it will not enforce any divisional of the patent against the claimant, falls outside the scope of rule 360. The revocation action is solely directed to the (now revoked) patent and not to any other claim scope .The mere fact that the patent has been revoked does not mean that every divisional will suffer the same fate. Costs (Article 69(1) UPCA) The ceiling of recoverable costs is based on a full procedure, with a written phase, an interim phase and an oral phase. Claimant has already filed its Statement of Claim , Reply to the Defence , Defence to the Application to amend the patent and since legal costs are front-loaded, claimant is awarded 80% of the maximum recoverable costs.

IPPT20260313, UPC CoA, Adobe v Keeex
Preliminary objection granted: Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR limited to UPC territory. France as place of harmful event / where infringement is likely to occur (Article 7 BR, Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). The Court of Appeal already clarified that the "place where the infringement occurred or is likely to occur" referred to in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA should be interpreted in the same way as the place "where the harmful event occurred or is likely to occur" referred to in Article 7(2) BR. Where the damage is allegedly caused via a website, these provisions do not require that the website be intended for users located in the territory of the Member States concerned, but simply that it be accessible within the jurisdiction of the court or division seised . Jurisdiction of the UPC (as a common court) with regard to defendants domiciled outside of the EU is governed by the Brussels Regulation pursuant to Article 71b(2) BR. The Statement of claim must contain sufficient facts and submissions to establish internal and international jurisdiction of the Court (R. 13 RoP, R. 19 RoP)). In particular, where the claimant requests that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the territory of States that are not members of the UPCA, the Statement of claim must contain the facts and legal arguments necessary to justify the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 71b(3) BR. Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR limited to UPC territory. On the basis of Article 7(2) BR the UPC only has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning damage occurring in its territory, which is the only link between the court seised and the subject matter of the dispute. 

IPPT20260312, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Biopsafe v Kaltek

Extension of time by one month for lodging the statement of defence. (Rule 23 RoP, Rule 9 RoP)

IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BFexaQC v NVIDIA
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings do not constitute interpretative material for the interpretation of the granted patent within the meaning of Article 69(1) EPC. Nor are such statements by the applicant during the grant proceedings binding for the purposes of interpretation in subsequent infringement or nullity proceedings. However, they may provide an indication of the skilled person’s understanding of the teaching of the granted patent at the priority date. No amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP) if, according to the Defendant's Statement of Defence, the attacked product differs in technical details from that described by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim and the Claimant bases the allegation of infringement in the Reply to the Statement of Defence on the technical functioning described by the Defendant, as long as the infringement claim continues to relate to the generally described product and its attacked function. Conditional counterclaim for revocation allowed (R. 25 RoP). It is admissible in procedural terms for the Defendant to file a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action, subject to the condition subsequent that the infringement action is unsuccessful. If this condition is met because the patent at issue is not infringed regardless of its validity, no decision is required on the counterclaim for revocation.

IPPT20260311, UPC CoA, Menarini v Hoffmann La Roche
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP). 

IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Qualcomm

Patent revoked and not infringed (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA). Added matter in claim 1 and 5 .(Article 138 1(c)) The skilled person cannot infer directly and unambiguously that “network interface means” are coupled between the modules and the network, being structurally interposed between them. Attacked embodiment (Article 25 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA). The “attacked embodiment” is regularly determined by the factual design of a certain product or a process with regard to the features of the invoked patent claim as asserted in the Statement of Claim. This can be a specific product determined, for example, by its product name, product sheet and technical design. However, the attacked embodiment may also comprise all products that generally have the technical features specified by the Claimant, which allegedly realise the technical teaching of the patent claim. This may also include products unknown to the Claimant or, in the case of an injunction, future products insofar as they essentially correspond to the features of the product presented by the Claimant in his Statement of Claim, which he considers decisive for the patent infringement. In such a case, it is usually sufficient if the Claimant has exemplified the infringement on a sample of the attacked embodiment. What is ultimately meant by the attacked embodiment depends on the interpretation of the Claimant’s submission. Once this has been defined it is for the Court to decide whether this attacked embodiment realises the teaching of the patent claim.

IPPT20260310, UPC CoA, Angelalign v Align Technology
Failure to meet a time period for submitting a written statement in ongoing proceedings is governed by R. 9.3(a) RoP, (R. 220.3 RoP). R. 320 RoP is relevant if a time limit is missed that relates either to completely new proceedings or to applications made after the conclusion of proceedings, such as the initiation of appeal proceedings, new proceedings on the merits, applications for the assessment of damages, challenges to decisions declaring appeals inadmissible or objections to default judgments. Even after a deadline has been missed, request for an extension of the timeline can be submitted and the time period can be extended retroactively (R. 9.3(a) RoP). The fact that the Local Division considered it sufficient that the submission of the incorrect reply was based on human error is not objectionable given the circumstances of the present case. This cannot be considered a manifest error.

IPPT20260309, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens

Request to allow Claimant to submit brief formal comments on defendants’ submissions rejected. (Rule 36 RoP). Reasons named are insufficient: Claimant has not specified any new facts, request remains vague. Claimant’s right to be heard is not unduly restricted by the rejection of the request.

IPPT20260306, UPC CoA, Dyson v Dreame
Cross border jurisdiction of the UPC for Spain follows from the fact that Eurep is domiciled in a Contracting Member State of the UPCA, namely Germany (Article 4 Brussels, Article 71b(1) Brussels”). Jurisdiction pursuant to these provisions is not limited to acts of the defendant within the UPC Territory. The connection with the UPC Territory is established by the domicile of the defendant, and not the location where the acts of the defendant occurred. Accordingly, contrary to the view expressed by Dreame and the Hamburg Local Division, it is not necessary to examine the plausibility of any acts committed by Eurep in Spain for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction in respect of Eurep. Court of Appeal refers questions to the CJEU regarding - jurisdiction under Article 8 Brussels Regulation over a defendant domiciled in a third state (China) concerning infringement in a non-UPC EU Member State (Spain) and co-defendant Eurep, an alleged intermediary whose services are used to infringe, - jurisdiction under Article 71b(2), second sentence regarding provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in a third state (China) concerning infringement in both a non-UPC EU Member State (Spain) and  UPC Contracting Member States when offering the same products in all those EU Member States through websites that are identical apart from the language,- Impact of Article 9(1)(a) of the Enforcement Directive 

IPPT20260306, UPC CoA, Black Sheep v HL Display
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260306, UPC CFI, LD Milan, KeyMed v PR Medical

Preliminary objection on language of proceedings rejected. (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 19 RoP, Rule 14.2(b) RoP). Rule 14.2. RoP is an exception to be interpreted restrictively. Proceedings shall be conducted in the official language of the contracting member state (Italian) only when conditions of Rule 14.2 (b) RoP are cumulative and considered together. Claimant bears the burden of proof, bearing in mind the stage of the proceedings.

IPPT20260306, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Gowling v Zentiva

Access to written pleadings and submissions granted to law firm in a closed case where a final decision has been rendered. (Article 45 UPCA, Rule 262.1 RoP). In such a case, interests laid down in Art 45 UPCA are properly balanced and, unless relevant reasons arise access should be granted. Request regarding evidence not sufficiently substantiated, therefore inadmissible.

IPPT20260304, UPC CoA, Hurom v NUC
Request for further exchange of written pleadings rejected (R. 36 RoP). New arguments on inventive steps […] have been raised by NUC in response to the new Auxiliary Requests brought for the first time by HUROM with the Grounds of Appeal and could consequently not have been submitted at an earlier stage. HUROM has been waiting for two months following the filing of the Statement of Response until it lodged the R. 36 RoP application for further exchange of written submissions on 22 February 2026, while it knew, according to the order of the judge-rapporteur of 20 October 2025, that following the filing of the Statement of response in this appeal, the appeal proceedings were expected to be ready for oral hearing. The parties will have the opportunity to further comment on each other’s positions from a legal perspective at the oral hearing. 

IPPT20260303, UPC CoA, BEGA v Washtower
Withdrawal of appeal by party consent (Rule. 265.1 RoP)

IPPT20260303, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, ABM v Philips
Counterclaim action successful. Patent revoked in entirety for lack of novelty. (Article 54 EPC , Rule 25 RoP). The patent lacks novelty as Claim 1 of the patent is fully anticipated by prior art (JP748). Claim 1 of the Auxilliary Request is obvious, starting from the same prior art. The unamended dependent claims, cannot change this.