UPC Court of First Instance - 2026 - 2nd quarter

IPPT20260622, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Evac v Shanghai VacDrain

Preliminary objection on international jurisdiction dismissed – Patent infringed, permanent injunction granted. (Article 25 UPCA , Article 26 UPCA , Article 63 UPCA, Rule 19.1(a) RoP) Jurisdiction and competence of court (Article 4(1) , Article 71b(1) Brussels Regulation) Jurisdiction arises since the defendant has its registered office in a UPC member state (Hamburg, Germany). No objection on jurisdiction raised by Chinese defendant. Direct Infringement (Article 25 UPCA) Ongoing acts - A normative and thus evaluative assessment is required when determining whether acts of infringement are “ongoing”, one must not adopt an overly formalistic approach that would run counter to the objectives of the UPCA. A continuing act may therefore be presumed if the infringer continues his infringing conduct even though he could have ceased it in view of the entry into force of the UPCA. Contrary to the plaintiff’s view, the existence of a continuing act […] cannot be established solely on the grounds that the defendants neither issued a cease-and-desist declaration nor otherwise eliminated the risk of further infringement. Managing director (Defendant 3) personally liable as accomplice co infringer - does not merely hold a corporate position (Article 64 UPCA , Article 25 UPCA). Defendant personally signed the invoices in each instance during the test purchases conducted in China. Even if these test purchases in China do not in and of themselves constitute an infringement of the patent at issue, this conduct nevertheless demonstrates that his position extends beyond that of a typical managing director or director. Around the time of the test purchase —he was, as a director and majority shareholder, actively involved in the operational business and the distribution of the contested embodiment by Defendant No. 1. No infringement by German distributor (Defendant 2) – No evidence to suggest the defendant could also offer or distribute the contested embodiments. Defendant was entered in the commercial register on after the test purchase , and therefore did not yet exist at the time of the test purchase. It cannot be inferred from an overlap in the ownership structure that an act of infringement by Defendant 2 is imminent , insofar as argued that Defendant 2 is entirely owned by the managing director. The plaintiff does not even claim that Defendant No. 2 is, from a legal standpoint, the legal successor to Vacdrain GmbH. It is undisputed that Defendant No. 2 and Vacdrain GmbH are two separate companies with different names, different managing directors, different addresses, and different shareholder structures. Insofar as the plaintiff nevertheless attempts to infer liability on the part of Defendant 2 as the de facto legal successor to Vacdrain GmbH, the plaintiff—even if some circumstantial evidence may support this—has failed to present sufficiently concrete facts on the basis of which such legal succession could be established with the certainty required for a judgment. No Exhaustion – maintenance and restoration of ability (Article 29 UPCA , Article 26 UPCA). The replacement of the vacuum buffer medium constitutes a “new manufacture” of the wastewater system according to the invention, since the technical effects of the invention are reflected precisely in the replaced vacuum buffer medium. If a part of a patent-protected product is exchanged or replaced, it must be determined whether this exchange or replacement constitutes permissible use in accordance with the intended purpose or whether it amounts to an impermissible new manufacture of the patent-protected product. The decisive factor here is whether the exchange or replacement preserves the identity of the specific product already placed on the market or whether a new product embodying the invention is thereby created. No basis for statute of limitations in connection with the injunction sought (Article 72 UPCA, Article 24(2) , (3) UPCA) Pursuant to Art. 72 UPCA , notwithstanding Article 24(2) and (3) of the UPCA, actions relating to all forms of financial compensation must be brought no later than five years after the claimant became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the last event giving rise to the action. No implied consent by plaintiff (Article 25 UPCA) Based on the arguments presented by the defendants, it cannot be established that at the time of the delivery of the exhaust valves to Evac Germany GmbH referred to by the defendants, the plaintiff was aware not only of the delivery in question but also of the fact that the exhaust valves utilized the technical teachings of the patent at issue.

IPPT20260612, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GSK v. Moderna

Preparation for oral hearing at interim conference (Rule 105.5 RoP , Rule 112 RoP) by deciding on mutual objections of parties as much as possible, and addressing outstanding applications, after having (further) heard the parties.. Case discussed based on all topics suggested beforehand by the Court and parties. Judge rapporteur guidance/preliminary views on the perceived crucial issues regarding claim construction, infringement and validity. Discussion on whether the counterclaim for revocation could be considered conditional on the establishment of infringement.

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). 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 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. 

IPPT20260416, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Brita v Wessper

Damages awarded for indirect infringement. (Article 26 UPCA, Article 68 UPCA , Rule 118 RoP). Indirect Infringement (Article 26 UPCA). If a patent claim protects a product consisting of two components, the existence of the other component is not a prerequisite for the objective elements of indirect infringement arising from the offering and distribution of one of the components. This only becomes relevant in relation to the subjective requirements for indirect infringement. For the objective elements, the sole decisive factor is whether the component in question is designed in such a way that it can interact with a second component designed in accordance with the invention, as intended by the patent. The embodiment is a means relating to an essential element of the invention claimed. Such an element is deemed to exist if the means is suitable for functionally interacting with one or more features of the patent claim in the implementation of the protected inventive concept.No exhaustion – no entitlement to use the invention protected by combination of claims (1, 13, 14, and 15) (Article 26 UPCA, Article 29 UPCA) The decisive point of reference for assessing exhaustion—and whether the technical effects of the invention are reflected specifically in a wear part—is the asserted claim. If, as in this case, a combination of a main claim with one or more dependent claims is asserted, the technical teaching of this combined claim must be taken as the basis, and it must be examined whether the technical effect of the combined teaching is manifested in the wear part. It is not, in principle, necessary for this to be the same technical effect that constitutes the invention according to the main claim.

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 CFI, LD Paris, BMS Innovations v BYD

No decision on preliminary objection regarding international jurisdiction (Article 31 UPCA , Article 71b (2) Brussels Regulation, Rule 19 RoP). The question of the UPC’s international jurisdiction for the UK over Chinese defendants to be determined in the forthcoming decision on the merits. No international jurisdiction of the Paris local division over a defendant domiciled in a non-UPC, non-EU third country (China) who is not alleged to have committed any act of infringement within the territory of a Member State of the EU.

IPPT20260414, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, GC Aesthethics v Establishment Labs

Order to produce evidence within 21 days – application not premature merely because all parties' arguments have not been finalised. (Article 59 UPCA, Rule 190.1 RoP)The Court must consider the cumulative conditions following from LD The Hague Order of 14 October 2024 (Winnow v Orbisk) when assessing an application to produce evidence. Condition 1 - The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims, this assessment is based on a prima facie approach and is twofold : (a) Did the Defendants present “reasonable available” evidence to support its underlying assertions (a) and (b)? (b) As an implied condition, could the requested evidence enable the Defendants to conclusively prove their assertions (a) and (b). Condition 2- The evidence to which access is requested must (a) be “specified” and (b) lie in control of the other party. Condition 3: (Rule 262A RoP) Other party’s confidential information should be protected Condition 4 is assessed on a double level regarding proportionality, equity, and fairness (Article 41(3) , 42 UPCA). Condition 4(a) - the “timing” of the application and considering the stage of the proceedings.[…] And Condition 4(b)- regarding each individual request as a final assessment. Application not premature - as a general principle, once an applicant deems that the conditions are met, it can submit a Rule 190 application at any stage of the proceedings.The grant is based on the position which the defendant will take when complying with the order.

IPPT20260408, UPC CFI, CD Munich, WIRPLAST v VILPE

Patent valid, revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA, Rule 25 RoP). Inventive step present (Article 56 EPC) Subject-matter of claim 1 is not obvious over prior art (D1) and the skilled person’s common general knowledge. Even if a certain prior art document (D1) in the same technical field (ventilation devices) as the patents considered to be a realistic starting point, it can be relevant for the assessment of inventive step that it relates to a different kind of device and solves a different problem than the invention of the patent. Skilled person wouldn’t reach the claimed subject-matter patent even if he considers combining the teaching (roof fan) of prior art D1 with the teachings of other prior art.

IPPT20260407, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v DREAME

Patent valid and infringed. Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, Rule 211 (1) RoP).Jurisdiction and Competence (Article 4, Article 8 (1), Article 71 Brussels Regulation).UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 4 Brussels for every defendant, who is based or domiciled within any Contracting Member State of the UPCA. The UPC has international jurisdiction with respect to the Spanish defendant, as a “close connection” according to Article 8 (1) Brussels is established. No international jurisdiction over the UK defendant regarding the UK part of patent (Article 8 Brussels Regulation).Legal requirements that are not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK, or at least Northern Ireland as a part of the UK, but to protect from an abstract risk in case the goods end up in the EU, are not a reasonably foreseeable basis to open jurisdiction based on the principle of co-defendants under Art. 8 BR.UK National part of patent. The fact, that a party is the Authorized Representative for a non-EU based manufacturer in Northern Ireland, is – as far as the evidence shows – not a sufficient basis for qualifying this party being a joint tortfeasor with the actual importer or an intermediary in the meaning of the English law. (Article 62 , 63 (1) UPCA). Costs (Article 69(2) UPCA). Split costs decision - the costs should be split proportionally, not per party. Pursuant to Art. 1 (2) and (3) of the Guidelines, the ceilings on recoverable costs apply to the costs of representation at each instance of the proceedings, irrespective of the number of parties.

IPPT20260410, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Seoul Viosys v Expert e-Commerce

Cost decision following the reversal of the first-instance decision in appeal on 2 October 2025 (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 151 RoP). Any costs already reimbursed on the basis of the original cost decision are recoverable as part of the costs of the proceedings in the cost proceedings following the appeal. Pursuant to Rule 151 RoP , the application for assessment of costs must be filed within one month of the decision in the main proceedings. If a decision is made before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original decision on liability for costs is amended during the appeal proceedings, the original decision on costs becomes invalid.

IPPT20260407, UPC CFI, President, OPPO v KPN

Language of proceedings changed to the language in which the patent was granted - English. (Article 49 UPCA , Rule 323.3 RoP). Respondent to provide English translations of the statement of claim.

IPPT20260402, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Laitram v Scanbelt

Second application for postponement of scheduled oral hearing dismissed - lack of sufficient grounds. (Rule 9 RoP , Rule 112 RoP). If the Court invites the parties to comment on proposed dates for the interim conference or the oral hearing, UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly, and no later than the expiration of the deadline set for them. Once a hearing date has been set, subsequent requests for a postponement will be rejected, unless there are substantial grounds which, evident to the Court, make it unreasonable for a party to attend, thereby justifying a postponement in the specific case. The compelling reasons for a postponement must be set out in the application for postponement so that they may be taken into account in the Court’s discretionary decision.This also applies if the late request refers to one of the other dates originally proposed by the Court .Once a date has been agreed upon with the parties, potential alternative dates are generally no longer reserved for a specific proceeding.

IPPT20260402, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Biolitec v Lightguide

Request to stay infringement proceedings denied, following the Opposition Division’s decision on invalidity of patent. (Rule 295 (a) RoP). Court concurs with the Opposition Division that the patent as granted is invalid on the grounds of added matter, but is valid in the version of auxiliary request 10b. A stay of proceedings under Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure is generally not warranted if the date set for the oral proceedings before the UPC precedes the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division. Nor is a stay of proceedings necessarily warranted merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the oral proceedings before the UPC and the date set by the UPC for the announcement of the decision.

IPPT20260401, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Illumina v Element Biosciences

Request to declare infringement action as manifestly bound to fail dismissed. (Rule 361 RoP). Omissions found in the statement of claim (SoC) must be regarded as a manifest error not justifying the dismissal of the action without any possibility of redress. Correction of obvious mistake of the SoC allowed. ( Rule 263 RoP , Rule 13 RoP, Rule 9 RoP ). The requested correction does not qualify as a change of the motion of the claim in light of R. 263 RoP.