Article 56

The general powers of the Court

1.   The Court may impose such measures, procedures and remedies as are laid down in this Agreement and may make its orders subject to conditions, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

2.   The Court shall take due account of the interest of the parties and shall, before making an order, give any party the opportunity to be heard, unless this is incompatible with the effective enforcement of such order.

Case Law

Court of First Instance

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. This right is safeguarded by Art. 47 EU Charter (access to justice), Art. 6 ECHR  and the Enforcement Directive. The Chinese “interim licence” qualifies as anti-suit measure as it effectively prevents enforcement of patents in other jurisdictions. The measure aims to stop patentees from obtaining injunctions in other courts, including the UPC. There is no valid reason to prevent a patentee from enforcing its rights in another jurisdiction. Using such measures to block foreign proceedings is contrary to principles of comity and EU legal order. It interferes with access to justice and enforcement of IP rights. The interim licence allows defendants to rely on a licence defence worldwide. The measure deters patentees from enforcing rights as there is a risk of penalties and legal consequences discourages litigation. This leads to a de facto enforcement of foreign decisions in the EU without recognition procedures, undermining international procedural law

IPPT20251222, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Amazon
Confirmed ex-parte interim measure (R. 209.4 RoP, R. 212.3 RoP) prohibiting anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures preventing pursuing patent infringement proceedings before UPC based on their European patents subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 56 UPCA). UK interim-licences equate to an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”). The UK measures referred to as “interim licence” or “adjustable licence“ are an anti-anti suit injunction,  exclusively directed against the Applicants enforcing their IP rights in foreign jurisdictions and therefore also before the UPC. No justifiable ground for such an order, which is directed against a party turning to a foreign court to have it assess that party‘s patent rights. Such order is especially not needed to safeguard the UK proceedings. Applicants have a legal interest in  defending against such an order even though it violates the ordre public of the European Union and therefore also the ordre public of the UPC contracting member states, which renders it null and void and thus unenforceable in UPC contracting member states. UK Final FRAND-rate setting is a measure equivalent to an ASI in the sense of the Impugned Order, should it encroach upon a party’s fundamental right to enforce its patent rights before the UPC. It is an excessive procedural tactic against comity and the acquis communtaire of the EU and the UPC contracting member states to impose such a concept upon foreign territories by way of a relief, which solely aims at depriving Applicants of pursuing their fundamental (intellectual) property rights and seeking access to justice before a EU court. This Order does not limit UK courts to attach whatever legal consequences to orders, judgment or other decision as long as such effects are strictly limited to the UK territory and do not attach any negative consequences to the Applicants for enforcing their patent rights in relation to the UPCA contracting member states.

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Disney
Order under penalty of a fine of € 100.000 to accept service of anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) by the representatives of defendants in the main proceedings (R. 354.3 RoP, R. 213 RoP). The request and the order issued are therefore inextricably linked to the main proceedings. Therefore, the power of attorney cannot be effectively restricted in this respect either. This is already evident from the fact that the representation of the respondents by the lawyers in the main proceedings clearly cannot depend on whether the AASI application is filed in the main proceedings themselves as an accompanying application under Rule 206 VerfO or in separate application proceedings. In both cases, the subject matter is the same: the protection of the main proceedings from the imposition of a ban on litigation in a foreign forum, which is intended to prevent the domestic continuation of the proceedings. Violation of code of conduct by representative which may lead to exclusion (R. 290.2 RoP, R. 291 RoP).

IPPT20241203, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Defendant to provide security for legal costs and other expenses to the Claimant in an amount of EUR 200,000. Defendant can also be ordered to provide security for legal costs (R. 158 RoP, Article 69 UPCA). It follows from the above that there is no conflict between Rule 158 RoP, in accordance with which a security may be imposed on a “party”, which includes a defendant, and the UPCA. In particular, there is no conflict with Article 69(4) UPCA, which does not exclude imposing a security on a defendant, and there is also no conflict with Article 56(1) UPCA as Article 69(4) provides the legal basis for a security, which may also be ordered against a defendant. In other words, the RoP comply with the UPCA (cf. Article 41(1) UPCA). Accordingly, the Defendant´s interpretation, on which its admissibility objections are based, is dismissed. In the absence of information on actual costs an amount of  EUR 200,000 is deemed adequate security