UPC Court of First Instance - 2026 - 2nd quarter

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 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.