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

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

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]. 

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).