Article 80

Publication of decisions

The Court may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of information concerning the Court's decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part in public media.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260217, UPC CoA, Rematec v Europe Forestry
Publication of the decision (Article 80 UPCA). Such an order also requires the claimant to demonstrate a legitimate interest in the requested publication of the decision at the defendant's expense. In this regard, all circumstances of the individual case must be considered, such as the scope and severity of the infringement, the public presentation of the conflict, the public's interest in information, and whether the publication of the decision can contribute to eliminating misconceptions in the market caused by the infringement or to deterring future infringements.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA).The decision whether to permit publication should depend on a two step-test: (1) whether the claimant has a legitimate interest in publishing the decision and (2) whether the defendant’s interests outweigh this interest (Art. 80 UPCA).  The Claimant has demonstrated a legitimate interest . In addition to general considerations, it has pointed out that the Defendants have already chosen this communication channel by announcing the underlying proceedings on their US website.The Claimant has demonstrated that it is necessary to correct the false impression created in the public domain regarding their authorisation to manufacture and sell the challenged products. Furthermore, the Claimant has convincingly pointed out that the Defendants supply approximately 8,000 customers worldwide, all of whom must be notified. This would not be feasible through private communication alone. In the Court’s view, there should be a restriction on the number of public media outlets in which the Claimant is allowed to publish the decision and that the period of publication must be limited.

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
No order to publish decision on SIOEN’s website (Article 80 UPCA). TEXPORT has not shown sufficient reasons for ordering the requested publication of the decision on SIOEN’s websites. Hence, the request shall be dismissed. 

IPPT20250115, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
No apparent reasons that would make publication of the decision necessary (Article 80 UPCA). When exercising discretion, the purposes of deterring future infringers and raising public awareness, as pursued by Art 80 UPCA, must be taken into account. The patent proprietor's (plaintiff's) interest in prevention, which goes beyond the specific infringement case, must be taken into account when weighing up the interests of the parties to the proceedings.

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ortovox v Mammut
No publication of the decision (Article 80 UPCA)  requires that the plaintiff's interest in the publication outweighs the necessary consequences of such publication for the defendant. As a rule, such publication is only considered if the plaintiff's protection is not already guaranteed by other measures.

IPPT20241104, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
No publication of decision (Article 80 UPCA). Does not appear necessary because it is not proportionate in the light of the limited infringing phenomenon; the certain detriment to the defendant that would result from such publication appears in fact greater than that which the limited tort ascertained so far requires.

IPPT20241031, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Sodastream v Aarke
No publication of decision (Article 80 UPCA). The Claimant´s interests are already satisfied by the effects of the other orders made by this decision on the merits. The right of publication includes a further element of punishment. Publication should therefore only be granted if the protection of the Claimant is not provided effectively and sufficiently ensured by the other measures ordered. This is not the case here.