Article 24

Print this page

Sources of law

1. In full compliance with Article 20, when hearing a case brought before it under this Agreement, the Court shall base its decisions on:
(a) Union law, including Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012;
(b) this Agreement;
(c) the EPC;
(d) other international agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the Contracting Member States; and
(e) national law.
2. To the extent that the Court shall base its decisions on national law, including where relevant the law of noncontracting States, the applicable law shall be determined:
(a) by directly applicable provisions of Union law containing private international law rules, or
(b) in the absence of directly applicable provisions of Union law or where the latter do not apply, by international instruments containing private international law rules; or
(c) in the absence of provisions referred to in points (a) and (b), by national provisions on private international law as determined by the Court.
3. The law of non-contracting States shall apply when designated by application of the rules referred to in paragraph 2, in particular in relation to Articles 25 to 28, 54, 55, 64, 68
and 72.


Case Law:


IPPT20240213, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Defendant’s request for security for costs (“cautio iudicatum solvi”) rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA; Rule 158 RoP, Article 24 UPCA). Protecting the rights of the defendant should be balanced against the right of the claimant to enforce its patent rights. The main rationale for the cautio is to secure the enforceability of a potential cost order. If such order is directly enforceable after it is granted, it can serve as grounds not to allow a cautio at the start of or during the proceedings. UPC decisions and orders are directly enforceable in the Netherlands in accordance with Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 71d Brussels and R. 354.1 RoP. A cautio in this case is hence not justified because of the risk that a possible cost order in favour of Bioo will not be directly enforceable. This contrasts with the situation decided by the CD Munich [IPPT20231030]  – [....] – on which Bioo relies. In that case the relevant claimant was domiciled outside the EU and no treaty regarding the execution of judgments was in place. As a rule, the court finds that a cautio based solely on (expected) material unenforceability should be awarded in exceptional circumstances only. The court agrees that under the circumstances in the present situation, which involves two competing SMEs with limited finances, the financial strain on the claimant can be a serious impediment to enforcement of its rights and to access to justice, and hence for granting a cautio. Lastly the court takes into consideration that according to Dutch national procedural law it is not possible to give a cautio vis-a-vis plaintiffs domiciled or residing in the Netherlands (and hence in the EU) under any circumstances, and also if there is good reason to doubt the possibility of recovery of a potential cost order due to the financial situation of the claimant.


UPC CFI, LD Vienna, 13 September 2023, CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee
The scope of protection of a European patent is to be interpreted on the basis of Article 69 (1) EPC including its interpretative protocol in conjunction with Article  24(1)(c) UPCA. Accordingly, the scope of protection of the patent is determined by the content of the patent claims, for the interpretation of which the description and the drawings must also be taken into account. In this respect, the interpretation of the patent claims serves not only to eliminate any ambiguities, but also to explain the technical terms used therein and to clarify the meaning and scope of the invention described therein. The patent description is the source material for determining the technical teaching that is protected by the patent claim. This form of interpretation combines adequate protection for the patent proprietor with sufficient legal certainty for third parties. The aspect of legal certainty requires that interested third parties are able to recognise whether a contemplated, planned or already realised specific embodiment falls within the scope of protection of the patent claim.