Article 25
Print this pageRight to prevent the direct use of the invention
A patent shall confer on its proprietor the right to prevent any third party not having the proprietor's consent from the following:
(a) making, offering, placing on the market or using a product which is the subject-matter of the patent, or importing or storing the product for those purposes;
(b) using a process which is the subject-matter of the patent or, where the third party knows, or should have known, that the use of the process is prohibited without the consent of the patent proprietor, offering the process for use within the territory of the Contracting Member States in which that patent has effect;
(c) offering, placing on the market, using, or importing or storing for those purposes a product obtained directly by a process which is the subject-matter of the patent.
Case Law:
Court of Appeal
IPPT20260602, UPC CoA, Kodak v Fujifilm
Infringement orders for UK and Germany set aside. Alleged infringement by Kodak Graphic in UK unsubstantiated (Article 25 UPCA). Fujifilm accepts that under UK law the importer is the party who has legal and beneficial interest in the goods. Under German case law ‘manufacture’ […] does not mean processing or transforming the material oneself: a person who has a material processed into a new item under a contract for work may be regarded as the manufacturer. Jurisdiction of the UPCA under Art. 32.1(a) UPCA to hear actions for infringement extends to allegations of joint tortfeasorship (Article 32.1(a) UPCA, Article 63 UPCA ,Article 25 UPCA). An "infringer" within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA is also a person who does not personally carry out the acts referred to in Art. 25 UPCA but to whom the acts of a third party are attributable because he is an accessory.
IPPT20260417, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sinocare
No direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). It is undisputed between the parties that Respondents do not sell or offer to sell receiver units (mobile phones) according to feature 1.4. As a result, the Respondents do not directly infringe claim 1 of the patent (Art. 25 (a) UPCA). The Respondents have also not been shown to directly infringe claim 14 (Art. 25 (b) UPCA). They have not been shown to use the patented process themselves, or to have offered the process in an infringing manner, i.e. by offering the patented process under the conditions of Art. 25 (b) UPCA for other than private and non-commercial use by diabetes patients (Art. 27 (a) UPCA).
IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, Onward v Niche
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. I
IPPT20260327, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
Finding of infringement set aside (Article 25 UPCA). 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.
IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Infringement found in appeal (Article 25 UPCA). Final decision in appeal (Article 75 UPCA, R. 242.2(b) RoP). The Court of Appeal, must, in order to issue a final decision, as a rule decide not only on the counterclaim for revocation but also render a final decision on the infringement action. Direct infringement of product claim 1 (Article 25 UPCA). “Offering” must be interpreted autonomously and understood in an economic sense. An “offering” does not have to constitute a legally binding contractual offer. It is sufficient that an item is presented in such a way that a third party could make an offer to acquire it, for example by concluding a contract of sale, lease, or hire - advertising alone can suffice. Infringement exists where the product is suitable for infringing use, even if alternative (non-infringing) configurations exist. Corrective measures and direct infringement – proportionality (Article 25 UPCA, Article 64 UPCA). Following the finding of direct infringement of patent claim 1 by the contested embodiment, corrective measures are ordered, namely the recall and permanent removal of the contested embodiment from the channels of commerce as well as the destruction of the contested embodiment. With regard to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 64(4) UPCA, it must be clarified that, in order to comply with the order to destroy the contested embodiments in the Defendant’s possession, it is sufficient if the longitudinal bars at the discharge opening that are spaced at least 70 mm apart are replaced with bars spaced below that value.
IPPT20251107, UPC CoA, OTEC v STEROS
Preliminary injunction set aside (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). More likely than not that the nonconductive fluid under feature 1.2 is not reproduced by the attacked embodiment. 1.
IPPT20251003, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
“Offer” within the meaning of Article 25(a) UPCA is to be understood in the economic sense and is not based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. “Infringer”: the mere position of managing director does not make the managing director and accomplice or accessory to a patent infringement by the company (Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20250304, UPC CoA, Sumi Agro v Syngenta
Provisional injunction confirmed. Infringement more likely than not (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). Syngenta has […] fulfilled its burden – in other words, satisfied the Court that it is more likely than not – that the Kagura 2024 product contains FFA that fall within the range (1 % to 95 % by weight) protected by claim 1 of the patent.
IPPT20241029, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
Manifest error of law that managing directors of a company are intermediaries within the meaning of Art. 63(1) UPCA solely on the basis of their function as managing directors. A managing director of a patent infringing company represents that company. This company cannot therefore be a ‘third party’ within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA and Art. 11 of the Directive 2004/48.
Court of First Instance
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’).
IPPT20260421, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Dainese v Alpinestars
Dismissal of revocation action (Article 65 |UPCA) and of infringement action (Article 25 UPCA). 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. 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.
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. 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.
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)
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.
IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Qualcomm
Patent revoked and not infringed (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA). 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.
IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BFexaQC v NVIDIA
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, TRUMPF v IPG
Patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA , Article 65 UPCA). literal use of the teaching of claim 6 of the patent. Features 6.1.1, 6.1.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2, and 6.3.1 are also realized.
IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Messerle v Sabert
Patent valid and not infringed. (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA)
IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA , Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 RoP) . Infringement is assumed. Late filed non infringement arguments submitted in the rejoinder. (Article 25 (a)UPCA, Rule 52 RoP).The liability of a managing director applies even more so to a financial holding company – Belkin v Philips . (Article 25 UPCA). When no action going beyond the typical role of shareholder/financial holding is alleged, the application against this defendant has to be rejected.
IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA). The challenged embodiments directly infringe the patent by making literal use of the teaching of claim 1. (Article 25 UPCA,)The infringement is challenged only with regard to feature 1.1 and based on their interpretation of claim 1 as a system claim requiring a developer receiving apparatus. From the Court’s interpretation of claim 1, the developer receiving apparatus itself, and the printer or parts of it, are not subject of claim 1. Claim 1 states that the developer supply container is ‘mountable’ to a developer receiving apparatus. The skilled person will understand this to mean that the parts of the developer receiving apparatus named in feature 1.1 — the developer receiving portion, the receiving opening and the supported portion — are not claimed to be present.
IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Competence regarding managing directors (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA). In the Statement of Claim, Honeywell has asserted that all Defendants commit infringing acts themselves. Such an allegation can be done either by stating infringing acts of defendants jointly and individually. It has furthermore stated that given the specific circumstances, Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk can be held responsible for alleged infringing acts by other entities. Whether these Defendants in fact carried out acts stated in Art. 25 UPCA and/or whether (lack of) other actions lead to the conclusion that they are an infringer within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits.
IPPT20260205, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia Guides v Disney
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on parties reaching a settlement. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 265.1 RoP, Rule 25 RoP)
IPPT20260128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Labrador Diagnostics v bioMérieux
Infringement action of an amended patent in a bifurcated case dismissed. (Article 25 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA). The infringement action is unfounded. The challenged embodiments do not infringe the patent in suit in its form as upheld by the CD Milan.
IPPT20260123, UPC CFI LD Paris, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
Patent not infringed. Application for provisional measures rejected. (Art. 25 UPCA. Rule 211 RoP). Allegations of infringement by GUARDANT HEALTH suffer from a "lack of evidence": The burden of proof for the alleged infringement lies with the party invoking it . (Article 54 UPCA, Art. 25 UPCA , R. 211.2 RoP). Applicant has failed to demonstrate the existece of an infringement of the patent by "DDM access" with a sufficient degree of certainty . It is not sufficient to rely mainly on a press release to demonstrate how SOPHIA GENETICS's software processes data.
IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock
Unitary patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Infringement of unconditionally amended claims 1 and 6 of the unitary patent - reproduced in entirety. (Rule 263 RoP).
IPPT20260115, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) No direct infringement because not every claimed component is shown. (Article. 25 UPCA) If a product consists of different components, the alleged infringing product must show every claimed component. Cases where only certain features of a product are infringed may be examples for an indirect infringement (Article. 26 UPCA), but not for direct infringement.
IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Emboline v AorticLab
Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement; device normally operated in a non-infringing manner (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement is not excluded by the fact that a device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and customers therefore do not regularly make use of the patented teaching, as long as the use of the patented teaching remains possible when using the device. In the case of a medical device, however, the possibility of an irregular but patent compliant use can only be considered as patent infringement if such use is in line with professional practice and the recognised rules of medical science.
IPPT20251218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Polidoro v Bekaert
Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20251210, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, MAS Maschinen v Altech
Direct and indirect patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA).
IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal v Keysight Technologies
Infringement action dismissed due to insufficient substantiation by the Claimant. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP). Inadmissible counterclaim for revocation (subject to intra-procedural condition). (Rule 25 RoP ). It is upon the claimant to substantiate why it is of an opinion and point to specific facts (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 171 RoP) and, if contested by Defendants - to offer adequate proof for such factual statements. In the absence of such statement, the Infringement Action has to be dismissed.
IPPT20251205, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Roche v Menarini
Injunction covering manufacturing may be issued even though the infringing product has so far been manufactured by a third party outside the Contracting Member States (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA). Offering (Article 25 UPCA) must be understood in an economic sense. It should not be based on the legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. An offer therefore need not contain all the details that would be necessary for the immediate conclusion of a contract by mere acceptance of the offer.
IPPT20251128, UPC CFI, LD Munich, JingAo Solar v Chint
Counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Advanced Cell Diagnostics v Molecular Instruments
Patents valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA)
IPPT20251106, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Brita v Fileder
Provisional measures granted via an ex-parte preliminary injunction for the seizure and surrender of infringing goods. (Article 62 UPCA, Rule 206 RoP, Rule 211 RoP , Rule 212 RoP , Article 25 UPCA). The applicant has demonstrated that the contested embodiments utilize all features of claim 1 of the patent. It is sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent supplies the German distribution company with the contested embodiments, thus engaging infringing acts . (Article 25(a) UPCA).
IPPT20251105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dolle v Farko
Counterclaim for revocation unsuccessful, patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Rule 25 RoP). No invalid claim of priority of the first application. (Article 87 EPC) . Patent Infringed (Article 25 UPCA). The contested embodiments implement all the features of claim 1 without difficulty.
IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
The UPC has competence (Article 32 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) with regard to managing directors (defendants Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk) to whom infringing acts may be attributable since the action against them can be identified as an alleged action for actual or threatened infringement within the meaning of Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA. Whether these Defendants in fact commit infringing acts themselves and/or whether infringing acts of other entities are attributable to them in the sense that they are an “infringer” within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA, is a question to be addressed in the case on the merits.
IPPT20251021, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycell
Permanent injunction by default judgement in infringement action, following preliminary measures of 31 July 2024 and appeal of 28 November 2025. Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA)
IPPT20251017, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Abbott Diabetes v Sinocare
Provisional injunction granted for UPC territory in view of the likelihood of infringement and validity (Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 34 UPCA, R. 211(1)(b) RoP , Rule 206 RoP). Infringement (Article 25 UPCA): More likely than not that Defendants infringe the patent with their GlucoMen iCan. Defendants assert that the GlucoMen iCan does not use features 1.4 and 1.6 of the patent . These non-infringement arguments (only) hold if the limited interpretation of these features proposed by Defendants were followed. In view of the correct claim interpretation discussed above, these features are also met in the GlucoMen iCan. It is not disputed that features 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 are also present. The provisionally established infringement warrants a generally worded injunction. (Rule. 211 RoP) . Abbott explained convincingly that an injunction is necessary and urgent at this moment to avoid Defendants from (further) entering the reimbursement market and to avoid further sales via ‘cash pay’. A provisional injunction is deemed proportionate in view of the infringement. Defendants’ request to make the injunction subject to security is dismissed as is it not argued or demonstrated that there is a risk that Abbott will not or is unable to pay Defendants’ damages.The request to declare that the GlucoMen iCan is considered “goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right”, is dismissed. Whatever the merits, such declaration is not possible as a provisional measure.
IPPT20251010, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep Retail
(In)direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). When the shelf accessory and rear device are sold together this constitutes direct infringement. The fact that they are not sold in an assembled state, does not alter this view as they are nonetheless sold together as the system of claim 1. As to the shelf accessory or rear securing device sold separately, the Court opines that HL Display has sufficiently substantiated that both the shelf accessory and the rear securing device of the BSRP Product are means relating to essential elements of the invention. BSRP also does not deny that it knew or should have known that those means are suitable and intended for putting the invention of EP 351 into effect.
IPPT20251002, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC Electronics
Defendant infringes upon the patent-in-suit in Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom (Article 25 UPCA) by shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom via its subsidiary NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and its distributor Warmcook, which both were shipping attacked embodiments to Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom and have their place of business in and acting from the UPC territory. Warmcook’s French web page from the French web shop states in general terms that Warmcook ships products to all EU member states and the United Kingdom (alongside Switzerland and French overseas territories). The fact that Warmcook’s website uses the French language and Euro as currency does not alter the fact that the website itself states shipments to said countries outside France. NUC Electronics Europe GmbH is undisputedly the European sales branch of defendant, and the importer according to the CE mark and the equivalent UK mark on the nameplate of the test purchase (exhibit P14), designating NUC Electronics Europe GmbH as the relevant importer for the EU and the UK respectively.
IPPT20250912, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, bellissa HAAS v Windhager
Patent valid and infringed Art. 25(a) UPCA.
It is irrelevant for direct patent infringement that the components are offered in a non-assembled state if the product is such that its components can be assembled in a simple manner at the place of use of the product without the addition of further objects. The offering or supplying of all components already constitutes direct patent infringement.
The individual sale of coordinated components constitutes direct infringement if the product consists of at least two identical, coordinated components which are designed to be assembled into the patent-protected product in accordance with the patent without the addition of further items. An injunction also covers such products. Offering (Art. 25(a) UPCA) Whether an act constitutes an offer depends on the explanatory value to be attributed to it, which is to be determined from the objective point of view of the relevant public. Embodiments advertised individually in close-up does not preclude an offer. It does not follow that the offer would be limited to the sale of individual lawn and design edges. It follows that several lawn and design edgings are offered for assembly by the customer. Emphasis that the variable lawn and design edges are easy to install and can be extended as required and offer individual design options are sufficient to explain that the products are not offered individually.
IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
Preliminary injunction for direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP), order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA), recall (Article 64(2)(b) UPCA )and cost award (Article 69 UPCA).
IPPT20250903, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, HP v Zuhai and Rentmeister
Preliminary injunction and other provisional measures for direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA, R. 209 RoP).
IPPT20250829, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, City Glass v Maars
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). The allegedly infringing products do not meet features 1.4 and 1.6 as interpreted above. […]. It is not necessary to decide on equivalent infringement of feature 1.4 because also feature 1.6 is not present in the Horizon products.
IPPT20250814, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Dyson v Dreame
Preliminary injunction (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP).
IPPT20250813, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Winnow v Orbisk
Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA); not infringed (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20250805, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, igus v Whale Technology
Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Decision by default
IPPT20250801, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Infringement claim rejected (Article 25 UPCA). Claim scope imited to only the claimed edge-tot-edge method (Article 69 EPC).
IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Participation in a public tender in Portugal constitutes a patent infringement (offering) in (at least) Portugal, even though SIOEN is based in Belgium and despite that the offer was not accepted. It is also obvious that the offer in question originated from SIOEN, or at least was submitted by the local distributor only after SIOEN had agreed to manufacture and deliver the products in question if the tender was won. Hence, SIOEN has also infringed the patent in this regard.
IPPT20250708, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros
Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Rebuttable presumption regarding other acts addressed in Article 25 UPCA. The Court may find for a direct infringement, where the completion of the infringing product by the user is clearly to be if a concretely outlined completion of the patented device is to be expected with certainty.
IPPT20250722, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
Direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation action dismissed by default (Article 65 UPCA, R. 355 RoP).
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - II
Infringement action dismissed for lack of patentability of UK part of European bundle patent (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Direct and indirect infringement in the UK by German defendants (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). Infringement in the UK: insufficient facts that there at least is an imminent danger that the Defendants will infringe upon the UK bundle patent by relocating the production site from Germany to the UK. Uncontested commercialization of Sonora-XTRA 3 plates in the UK. The acts of offering, placing on the market, using or storing it for those purposes had not been contested by Defendants with a sufficient level of substantiation (see infra).
IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi
Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA): not all features of claim 1 are realised by the contested embodiments..
IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Steros v Otec
PI granted (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62(1) UPCA, R. 211.1(a) RoP).
IPPT20250616, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction for Germany, France and Sweden, recall, destruction, providing information, to compensate for damages. Rebuttable presumption of infringement (Article 25 UPCA). By offering and placing the challenged embodiment on the market, the Defendant gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that it also uses it or imports or possesses it for the purposes of offering, placing on the market, or using it.
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
Patent partially invalid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Extent of protection (Article 69 EPC); infringement (Article 25 UPCA); Injunction (Article 63 UPCA): If a device has the required suitability, it is irrelevant whether the characteristics and effects specified in the patent are achieved regularly, only in exceptional cases or only by chance, and whether the user intends to achieve these effects. It is sufficient that the groove base present in the contested embodiments is potentially suitable for receiving the front end of a pile end. In the court's view, this is the case because the groove of the contested embodiments, which tapers towards the groove base and is shown below, does not prevent a pile with a wall thickness corresponding to the groove base or a tapered pile from reaching the groove base. An injunction relating to the contested embodiments could not be imposed if, taking into account all relevant parameters such as shape (cone), material, wall thickness of the pile, soil conditions and pile driving force, it is technically impossible to manufacture a pile whose front end can reach the bottom of the groove of the contested pile tips when they are attached or driven in. In this case, the claim's requirement of attachability and thus the realisation of all features of the patent claim would have to be denied, even though this is a circumstance outside the scope of the patent claim. Burden of proof regarding infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA). The plaintiff must demonstrate and prove that all the features of the patent in suit are realised by the contested embodiments (ramming tips), since it alleges infringement and thus the realisation of all the features of the patent in suit by the contested embodiments. If the defendants claim that patent infringement is impossible due to circumstances outside the scope of the patent claim, the defendants bear the burden of proof for this claim .
IPPT20250523, UPC LD Paris, Hurom v NUC
Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of European patent revoked as amended (Article 138(1) EPC, Article 65(2) UPCA); infringement claims concerning Poland admissible but dismissed as unfounded.
IPPT20250513, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sanofi v Amgen
Second medical use claims: both infringement action and counterclaim for revocation unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 65 UPCA). Infringement of a second medical use claim (Article 25(a) UPCA). For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way that it leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use of which the alleged infringer knows or reasonably should have known that it does. In other words, as an objective element, there must be either a prescription in order to lower Lp(a) levels, or there must be at least circumstances showing that such a use may be expected to occur. In addition, as a subjective element the infringer must know this or reasonably should have known.
IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei
Patent infringed (Article 25 UPCA) and valid (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250430, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, AGFA v Gucci
Both infringement action (Article 25 UPCA) and counterclaim for revocation (Article 65 UPCA) dismissed.
IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA) does not require the claimant to prove that the defendant was previously aware of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement.
IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
An order to preserve evidence and conduct an inspection may serve to secure evidence of individual acts of use (Article 60 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert
Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation dismissed: permanent injunction (Article 63(1) UPCA), provision of information (Article 67 UPCA), and corrective measures (Article 64 UPCA): recall, removing the product from channels of commerce , destruction (Article 64(2)(e) UPCA), Provisional damages of € 100.000 (Article 68 UPCA). No license for the contested embodiments. The development agreement submitted as Annex rop 10 to the file grants the defendant a right to use the disputed patent only for the ‘Travelino’ caravan, but not for the “Deseo” and ‘Azur’ caravans that are the subject of the dispute.
IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Direct infringement of patent (Article 25 UPCA), counterclaim for revocation dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Dish v Aylo
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA), partial revocation (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250402, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I
Direct infringement of non-lapsed German part of European patent (Article 25 UPCA), revocation counterclaim dismissed (Article 65 UPCA).
IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
Direct patent infringement within the territory of the UPCA member states by acts outside that territory (Article 25 UPCA): acts in the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA also encompass acts which make the infringement possible and support it, at least when such acts give the potential perpetrator control over the infringement.
IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Lionra v Cisco
Infringement claim and counterclaim for revocation unfounded. The indirect and direct infringement action is unfounded (Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA). The indirect patent infringement of claim 1 of the patent in suit alleged by the plaintiff pursuant to Art. 26 (1) UPCA does not exist. In any case, there is no literal realisation of feature 1. b) and feature group 1. c) aa-bb by the attacked embodiments. Accordingly, there is also no direct infringement of claim 6 pursuant to Art. 25 UPCA.
IPPT20250117, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea
No patent infringement: neither literal nor by equivalence (Article 25 UPCA).
IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA). All features of claim 1 are used in the optical unit.
IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
Revocation action unfounded, patent infringed. Direct infringement of product claim (Article 25(a) UPCA) even though voice control feature requires activation. If a device in the offered or offered or sold is not yet suitable for making use of all the features of the patent claim because the customer must first activate certain functions, the alleged infringer must accept responsibility for the conduct of his customers if he instructs them to activate the device in such a way or if he deliberately exploits such activation by the customer in the knowledge that such activation will take place. even when voice control feature must be activated.
IPPT20241220, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Pohl-Boskamp v pharma-aktiva
Preliminary injunction granted (article 62 UPCA). Must be assumed that the features of claim 1 are realized (Article 25 UPCA, R. 171.2 RoP). The respondents have not specifically contested the realisation substantiated by the applicant, who bears the burden of proof in this respect (Rule 171.2 RoP). It is not sufficient to dispute the proper performance of the analyses carried out by the applicant on the weight proportions and viscosities.
IPPT20241218, UPC LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear
Injunction regarding SEP patent. FRAND Defence (Article 25 UPCA), Article 102 TFEU). A declaration of willingness to licence should be assessed solely on the basis of the content, and not on subsequent conduct, should contain a declaration to that effect, and should not be confused with an offer/a counter-offer. A counter-offer from the implementer must be accompanied by a security at least in the amount of the counter offer, and must be accompanied by a binding undertaking that the patentee will receive the security as a licence payment if his offer ultimately is legally affirmed. Implementer cannot claim a patentee has a dominant market position if it also claimed the patent is not standard essential. The defendant (relying on FRAND defence) has the burden of proving the dominant market position of the patentee. The patent cannot give the patentee a dominant market position if the defendant also relies on the argument that the patent is not standard essential.
IPPT20241115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril - II
Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Infringement within the scope of the UPCA by defendant based in India (Article 25 UPCA). Companies that are members of a group and play a key role in a distribution network for the infringing product – such as a sole manufacturer or a European sales and marketing hub – may also be considered as infringers if they are located outside the Contracting Member States but supply their products to other members of the group located in the Contracting Member States, while these companies distribute these products on the European market, including in at least one Contracting Member State where the patent in suit is valid.
IPPT20241113, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama
No need to apply national law regarding acts of infringement occurring before 1 June 2023 (Article 25 and 26 UPCA). In the territories of the Contracting States that signed the UPCA of 20 June 2013, the acts referred to in Articles 25 and 26 UPCA were already considered to be infringements qualified as acts of infringement by European patent law (Article 69 EPC) or in the national laws of those States that were harmonised by Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights relating to infringements of existing European patents. No prior knowledge of infringement required (Article 25 UPCA). The text does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had prior knowledge of the existence of the patent and the materiality of the alleged infringement.
IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Provisional injunction with exception granted for direct and literal infringement (R. 211 RoP, Article 62 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC). It is more likely than not that the patent in suit is infringed by the offer and distribution of the challenged embodiments in the territory of the Contracting Member States Germany and France (R. 211.2 RoP).Slovakian manufacturing company is liable for the offering and delivering of the challenged embodiments, even if the order does not cover the territory of Slovakia (Article 25 UPCA). The Düsseldorf Local Division has already decided that companies which are members of a group and play a key role in a distribution network for the infringing product – such as a sole manufacturer or a European sales and marketing hub – may be considered as infringers even if they are located outside the Contracting Member States but supply their products to other members of the group located in the Contracting Member States, while those companies distribute those products on the European market, including at least one Contracting Member State where the patent in suit is valid. On this basis, Defendant 2) is liable for the offering and delivering of the challenged embodiments, even if the order does not cover the territory of Slovakia. A more extensive order covering manufacture in Slovakia, which is not a Contracting Member State yet, is not considered in the case at hand. The Defendants are cumulatively liable because they act in a close and interdependent relationship due to their structure as a large group of companies.
IPPT20241015, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek
Owning the domain www.asus.com is infringing (Article 25(a) UPCA) as it is evident that through this domain and its sub-domains, products containing the accused Modules are offered and sold.
IPPT20241010, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Seoul Viosys v epert e-Commerce - I
Direct literal infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Since the attacked embodiment makes literal use of the technical teaching of the patent in suit, the defendants infringe the patent in suit directly and literally by offering and distributing the attacked embodiment. Presumption of acts of infringement. By offering and marketing the challenged product, the Defendants have also committed acts of infringement within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA. At the same time, offering and putting on the market also creates a rebuttable presumption that the defendants are also using the challenged product, importing or possessing it for the purposes of offering, putting on the market or using it.
IPPT20240913, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips IP v Belkin
A patent infringer is the person who appears as the manufacturer or supplier or gives the impression to the targeted public that he is the person who manufactures and/or sells the goods in his own name and for his own account (Article 25 and 26 UPCA, EU Enforcement Directive). Intermediary. In case of a patent infringement by a corporation its directors may be liable for injunctive relief as intermediaries but not for damages (Article 63(1) UPCA)
IPPT20240906, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Novartis v Celltrion
Application for preliminary measures unfounded: Defendant’s conduct does not already constitute an imminent infringement, i.e. offering of infringing product (Article 62(1) UPCA) (Article 25(a) UPCA). In order for a patent infringement to be considered imminent, there must be concrete indications in the overall circumstances that an infringement is imminent. It is sufficient for an offer if the act in question actually creates a demand for the product which the offer is likely to satisfy. Cumulative liability defendants because they acted in a close and interdependent commercial relationship based on their structure as a large group of companies (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement of European bundle patents before the UPC is subject to uniform substantive law (article 25 UPCA) and uniform procedural law (article 62(1) UPCA) instead of different national laws.
IPPT20240827, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Syngenta v Sumi Agro
In case of a product claim directed to a composition it is sufficient for the applicant to allege and prove that at the time of any act of use under Art. 25 UPCA by the respondent, the attacked composition had all the features of the patent claim or that there is an imminent danger that such an act of use directed to such a composition will be carried out by the respondent in the future. It is not on the applicant to plead and prove why the composition had all features of the patent claim. Risk of infringement in Contracting States by distributing the 2023 product outside the Contracting States, namely in the Czech Republic, and by advertising "KAGURA" within the Contracting States. The Respondents have in any event created a risk of first infringement that patent-infringing compositions will be manufactured, advertised and distributed by them in the territory of the Contracting States in the future (Art. 25(a), 62(1) UPCA). In the circumstances of this case, in order to eliminate the risk of first infringement, the Respondents should have offered a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause in respect of the 2023 product.
IPPT20240827, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Hand Held Products v Scandit
Preliminary injunction for indirect infringement (Article 62 UPCA, R. 211.2 RoP). Sufficient degree of certainty for provisional measures regarding indirect infringement, not regarding direct infringement (Article 62(4) UPCA, Rule 211(2) RoP, Article 25 UPCA, Article 26 UPCA)). Direct infringement (article 25 UPCA) uncertain with constellation. In certain constellations a direct infringement is unproblematically the case, for example, if a kit for assembly into a complete device is supplied by the customer including assembly instructions and the complete device does not function if it is assembled in a different way. However, due to the large number of different programming options and possibilities for assembling the hardware components, it is not certain with the necessary concreteness that the customer produces a patent-compliant overall device.
IPPT20240823, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Ericsson v Asustek
Leave for an unconditional limitation of the scope of the initial claim (Rule 263(3) RoP). Defendant Arvato should no longer be considered to be infringing according to Art. 25(a) UPCA, but regarded as an intermediary according to Art. 62(1) UPCA, whose services are used by the other Defendants to infringe the Patent.
IPPT20231211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports
Direct use of the invention (article 25 UPCA). Element of suppression (“Unterdrückung”) is fulfilled.
IPPT20231205, UPC CFI, LD Munich, 10x Genomics v Nanostring
“Offering” (Article 25 UPCA) includes any act committed within the scope of the patent in question which, according to its objective explanatory value, makes the subject-matter of the demand available in an externally perceptible manner for the acquisition of the power of disposal.
IPPT20231018, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, myStromer v Revolt Zycling
Offering a product which is the subject matter of the patent (article 25(a) UPCA) is to be understood in purely economic terms. In the case of a product, it includes any act committed within the scope of the European patent which makes the subject-matter of the demand available. Therefore, the display of goods within the scope of the respective patent taking place at a trade fair taking is an offering within the meaning of this provision. In order to be offered, not all features of the patent claim need to be shown in the advertising and thus also on a trade fair stand if it must be assumed, when objectively considering the circumstances actually given in the case in dispute, that the product shown corresponds in its technical design to the subject-matter of the patent. It depends on whether it can be reliably concluded from the existence of other objective circumstances that the product is in conformity with the patent. An essential aspect in this respect is the view of the relevant public as to the objective explanation in the advertising, which must be determined taking into account all the factual circumstances of the individual case.
