Article 76

Basis for decisions and right to be heard

1.   The Court shall decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties and shall not award more than is requested.
 2.   Decisions on the merits may only be based on grounds, facts and evidence, which were submitted by the parties or introduced into the procedure by an order of the Court and on which the parties have had an opportunity to present their comments.

3.   The Court shall evaluate evidence freely and independently.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250813, UPC CoA, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva
 As per Art. 34 UPCA, decisions of the Court shall cover the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the patent has effect. Injunctions, as a rule, will cover all those Contracting Member States. A restriction requires the presence of certain circumstances, such as when a claimant has restricted the territorial scope of its action (Art. 76(1) UPCA). 

IPPT20240819, UPC CoA, Sibio v Abbott
Manifestly erroneous that Ireland is a Contracting Member State of the UPC (Article 84.2 UPCA) and  thus cannot be considered to be covered by Abbott’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Court of First Instance therefore awarded more than was requested for, which is contrary to Art. 76 UPCA. Suspensive effect granted insofar as the impugned order extends to the territory of Ireland. Application for suspensive effect admissible (Rule 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA). Not a requirement that a request for suspensive effect is lodged in a separate workflow in the Court’s case management system.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260422, UPC CFI CD Paris, Huntsman v BASF
Costs to be shared as claimants were not entirely successful in their claims (Article 69 UPCA). As the defendant has not submitted a claim for costs, the Court issues an order, on the basis of Article 76 of the UPCA, only on the costs of the claimants. 

IPPT20251216, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Align v Angelalign

Right to be heart (Article 76 UPCA). The refusal of completely new non- infringement arguments and evidence raised for the first time in the Rejoinder, cannot be seen as a violation of the Defendants’ right to be heard.

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). If a defendant, upon invitation, fails to lodge an objection to an application for provisional measures the case can be decided by means of a regular order (R. 206 RoP, R. 209.1(a) RoP, R. 355.1(a) RoP). In a situation like this, a decision by default (R. 355.1(a) RoP) is not something to be considered for several reasons. The fact that the Applicant has, in addition to its regular motions, also requested a decision by default does not prevent a regular order from being issued. Pursuant to Art. 76(1) UPCA, the Court shall decide in accordance with the requests submitted by the parties and shall not award more than is requested. The present order falls within this framework.

IPPT20290829, UPC LD Mannheim, Faro v PMT
Proceedings are closed: no need to adjudicate (R. 360 RoP) because of settlement with the first defendant (Article 76(1) UPCA) 

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Aylo Premium v Dish Technologies 
German part (only) of European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA). The Unified Patent Court can revoke European patents for one or more individual UPC Member States if so requested (Article 34 UPCA, Article 76 UPCA). 

IPPT20250108, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v SWAT
Incorrect citation of the legal grounds does not relieve the Court of its obligation to consider the motion where it is possible to identify the correct legal grounds based on the legal arguments and factual grounds put forward by the applicant in support of the application [Article 42(2) UPCA, Article 76 UPCA]. 

IPPT20250411, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Eoflow v Insulet
US’159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late filed: could have been produced earlier ((Article 76 UPCA,) In a revocation action, prior art (potentially detrimental to the patent or not) cannot be filed at a later stage. The filing of prior art at late stage, or at the stage of the replies prevents the opponent from filing full observations (reply and rejoinder) on a crucial point of the legal assessment. This is contrary to the adversarial principle laid down in Art. 76 UPCA. 

IPPT20241227, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno - I
The incorrect citation of the legal provisions upon which the application is grounded does not relieve the Court of its obligation to consider the motion where it is possible to identify the correct legal grounds based on the legal arguments and factual grounds put forward by the applicant in support of the application. This is what occurs in the situation at hand.[Article 42(2) UPCA, Article 76 UPCA]

IPPT20241226, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Advanced Bionics v MED-EL
Parties are to submit copies of documents relied on (the patent in dispute, in the version issued by the EPO, and the original application) into the proceedings (Article 76 UPCA). Within the regulatory system of ‘UPC’, each party must prove the facts alleged and the Court cannot, in general, acquire evidence ex officio, nor base its decision on evidence or documents not formally acquired in the proceedings.

IPPT20241007, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Abbott v Dexcom
Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Request to change claim dismissed (R. 263 RoP). Request should have been in the application, not in an annex; changes asked are not mere corrections, could have been formulated earlier and extend the scope of the injunction. No need for alternative claims as the Court may grant the relief in full or in part as requested (Article 76.1 UPCA).