Article 63

Permanent injunctions

1.   Where a decision is taken finding an infringement of a patent, the Court may grant an injunction against the infringer aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. The Court may also grant such injunction against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe a patent.
2.   Where appropriate, non-compliance with the injunction referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to a recurring penalty payment payable to the Court.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Permanent injunction against infringer (Article 63(1) UPCA). The Court must grant a permanent injunction unless there are special reasons for not doing so, which may arise in particular from the general obligations under Article 3 of the Enforcement Directive. 

IPPT20251125, UPC CoA, Meril v Edwards
In case of infringement, not granting an injunction requires a special reason (Article 63 UPCA, Article 11 Enforcement Directive) such as if an injunction would be disproportionate taking into consideration not only the interest of the parties to the litigation but also interest of third parties such as patients (Article 3 Enforcement Directive). The interests of the patients justify an exception to the right to injunctive relief and corrective measures if it is established that the infringing embodiment is the sole available treatment method or represents an improvement upon the available treatment methods, resulting in a notable enhancement of patient care.

IPPT20251003, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
“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). 

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

IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Cup&Cino v Alpina

Permanent injunction granted for recall and destruction of goods. (Article 63(1) UPCA) the defendant markets and uses the invention of the patent. Advertising materials are excluded from destruction (Article 64 (2)(e) UPCA) because they are not covered by the wording of the law. The term “equipment” in Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA refers to materials and equipment used in the manufacture of the products. Purely promotional materials that merely depict the contested embodiments are not covered.

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). 

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.

IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Rejection of preliminary objections confirmed by panel (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). 

IPPT20260116, UPC CFI LD Paris, IMC Creations v Mul-T-Lock 
Unitary patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) and infringed (Article 25 UPCA). Permanent injunction granted.(Article 63 UPCA)  

IPPT20251022, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
The UPC has competence (Article 32 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) Earlier preliminary measures upheld by order of a permanent injunction, with the addition that total penalty be maximised ; (Art. 63 UPCA , Article 34 UPCA).The Court has international jurisdiction to hear the infringement Action (Art. 7.2 Brussels Regulation) because the alleged infringement by the Polish Defendant also takes place in the Netherlands. 
 

IPPT20251020, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Patent maintained in amended form (Article 65 UPCA), direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA). Injunction is the normal remedy to restrain future infringements, but court has discretionary power to where it would be disproportionate or would be unreasonably detrimental to the public interest, including the interests of third parties (Article 63 UPCA, Article 3 Enforcement Directive).To justify a public interest in the availability of the infringing embodiment, it is essential to demonstrate that this is the sole available treatment method or that it represents an improvement upon a known treatment method, resulting in a notable enhancement in patient care. Therefore, excluding a certain product from the range of those available to doctors for the performance of certain procedures does not engage in itself a relevant public interest, because it does not necessarily carry with it the implication that, had the choice not been available, all the patients could not have been treated adequately with the remaining products.  

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, 

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Injunction covering all Contracting Member States except Romania and Malta (Article 34 UPCA). Request was submitted before Romania ratified the UPCA and TEXPORT has not made an application to amend the claim to cover also Romania. Furthermore, TEXPORT has submitted an extract from the EP register regarding the legal status of the Patent, which shows that the Patent is in force in all Contracting Member States except Malta. This means that Romania and Malta needs to be excluded from any injunction. The fact that the public needs firefighter suits do obviously not lead to the conclusion that SIOEN should be allowed to continue infringing the Patent, especially since it is possible to get access to firefighter suits without buying infringing products from SIOEN. Hence, an injunction shall be granted.(Article 63 UPCA, Article 3 Enforcement Directive). Proportionate recurring penalty of € 1.000 for each day of delay (Article 63.2 UPCA, Article 82 UPCA). The Court notes that the obligation to comply with these kinds of orders normally are made subject of a recurrent penalty payment and finds no reason to deviate from this standard. However, the Court agrees with SIOEN that the amounts suggested by TEXPORT are unnecessarily high. Instead, the penalty payment for non-compliance with the injunction is set to up to EUR10 000 per violation, and the penalty payments for non-compliance with the orders on communication of information, recall and destruction are set to up to EUR1000 for each day of delay

IPPT20250721, UPC CFI, RD Nordic Baltic, Edwards v Meril
When the Courts finds that a patent has been infringement, a request for an injunction should normally be granted (Article 63(1) UPCA). No overriding public interest; no reason to refrain from issuing an injunction in this case (not even in return for a payment in lieu), or to exclude certain sizes or grant a grace period. 

IPPT20250620, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Headwater v Motorola
Preliminary objections rejected (R. 19 RoP, R. 20 RoP). Fifth defendant is also allegedly an intermediary by enabling and promoting the infringing acts of the other defendants as a logistics service provider (Article 63(1) UPCA).

IPPT20250606, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Tiroler Rohre v SSAB
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. 

IPPT20250404, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards v Meril
Injunction subject to a recurring penalty (Article 63 UPCA). A declaration to cease and desist without a penalty clause by one or more but not all defendants cannot secure the patentee's interest in defending the exclusive nature of its right in the same way as a court order. The risk remains that the members of the group will re-organise their business around such isolated cease-and-desist declarations and thus continue to infringe the patent in the relevant territories without the risk of having to pay a penalty. 

IPPT20241122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO
Infringement of 4G standard essential patent: permanent injunction granted (Article 63 UPCA), Permanent injunction granted (Article 63(1) UPCA). Risk of repetition due to the infringing acts committed by the defendant in the past in the contracting states asserted in the present case. An understanding of a SEP as a chipped title for the enforcement of injunctions, which only serves to enforce higher licence fees, is irreconcilable with European law (Article 11 Enforcement Directive). Injunctive relief not precluded by FRAND objection (Article 102 TFEU). While the Plaintiff has behaved in accordance with the ECJ's programme of obligations addressed to it as SEP holder, the Defendants have not behaved in a targeted manner and in accordance with the practices of a party seriously interested in taking a licence in the negotiations for a FRAND -compliant licence within the meaning of the negotiating programme developed by the European Court of Justice in Case C-170/13 – Huawei v. ZTE, ECLI:EU:C:2015:477.

IPPT20241115, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril - II
Rejection of proportionality defence (Articles 63(1) and 64(1) UPCA). Regarding procedures for implementing corrective measures, Article 64(4) of the UPCA explicitly mentions the interests of third parties. While the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court do not explicitly mention the interests of third parties or the public otherwise, these interests may also be considered when exercising the discretion stipulated by the "may" in Articles 63(1) and 64(1) UPCA. In considering the interests of third parties and the public interest, the court will give due consideration to the possibility of the infringer entering into a license agreement or initiating proceedings for a mandatory license. 

IPPT20241104, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Patent infringement uncontested. Permanent injunction granted to prohibit repetition and prohibit future conduct (Article 63(1) UPCA). With respect to infringing conduct that has already been ascertained, it is up to the infringing defendant to prove that there is no risk of repetition; with respect to future conduct that has not yet been realised, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, by virtue of objective elements, such as the unambiguousness of the elements preparatory to the infringement, and subjective elements, with respect to the defendant's intention to proceed with the infringement. Recurring penalty (Article 63(2) RoP) allows for a better protection of the permanent injunction, considering that even after the execution of the measure ante causam there were indications to the market by the defendant of a willingness to market. 

IPPT20240913, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips IP v Belkin
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)