UPC CFI, LD The Hague, 29 August 2025: provisional measures dismissed for unreasonable delay

Application for provisional measures dismissed for unreasonable delay (R. 211.4 RoP). 

Cilag waited almost three months, until 6 February 2025, before sending a letter to Rivolution. Cilag also did not take action immediately [...] in a letter to Rivolution of 26 March 2026 (in reply to Rivolution’s response of 20 February 2025). It then took until the end of April, 29 April 2025. The tender that Applicant claims to give rise to new urgency was already known about a year prior, which means that this fact cannot revive urgency. 

LD The Hague competent to hear infringement claim (Article 33.1 UPCA). The panel doubts whether the UPCA should be interpreted such that, in case of a unitary patent, all divisions of the court are then also competent to hear the case, irrespective of the internal distribution of competences of the court provided by Art. 33.1 UPCA. This would make Art. 33.1 UPCA effectively meaningless for cases relating to unitary patents. Cilag substantiated in a sufficiently plausible way that the asserted imminent/threatened infringement is also directed to customers in the Netherlands. The LD The Hague therefore is competent to hear the application pursuant to Art. 7(2) BR and Art. 33.1(a) UPCA. 

Applicant has standing to sue  (Article 47 UPCA). Pursuant to R. 8.4 RoP, the person shown in the Register for unitary patent protection as the proprietor of the patent shall be treated as such. Contrary to what is explicitly mentioned for bundle patents (in R. 8.5 (c) RoP), this is not said to be a rebuttable presumption.

IPPT20250829, UPC LD The Hague, Cilag v RiVOLUTION