UPC Court of First Instance - 2026 - 1st quarter
Print this pageIPPT20260331, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Infoblox v Nixu
Uniform deadline set for all Defendants uniformly, for the lodging Statement of defence and a possible Counterclaim for revocation. (Rule 9 RoP , Rule 24 RoP). Given that the current deadlines would deviate by only 20 days, the request for alignment of time limit is reasonable.The claimant has to bear the risk of deviating service dates, if it waited to arrange payment for service in the U.S. in due course after the request of the sub-registry. While a claimant is not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it remains in its own interest to cooperate with the court's registry as quickly as possible[…].
IPPT20260326, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Quinn Emanuel v Huawei
Inadmissible application panel review (R. 333.1 RoP) of a decision of the judge-rapporteur under R. 262.1(b) RoP as R. 262.1(b) RoP does not provide for any transfer of competence from the panel to the judge-rapporteur, and therefore no review of the (delegated) decision of the judge-rapporteur by the panel is warranted. For the training and advisory interest of a law firm justifying third-party access to the file under R. 262.1(b) RoP, an abstract assessment is required. Therefore, it is generally sufficient that the requested access can objectively serve to satisfy the interest in obtaining information for training and advisory purposes. This interest exists independently of whether the Court could be scrutinised through access to the files.
IPPT20260326, UPC CFI, CD Paris, IMI v Belparts
Joint withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for infringement on reaching settlement. (Rule 265.1 RoP)
IPPT20260325, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hoffman-La Roche v Menarini
Joint withdrawal of infringement action on reaching settlement. (Rule 265.1, 2 RoP)
IPPT20260324, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Reel v Fives
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction rejected (Article 32 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA, Rule 19.1 RoP). Grounds of lack of standing and res judicata, have no bearing on the court’s subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction and are not included in the list of preliminary objections in Rule 19.1 RoP, which must be regarded as exhaustive
IPPT20260323, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Valeo v Robert Bosch
Panel review confirming dismissal of preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP). Competence in case of multiple defendants (Article 33.1(b) UPCA). The commercial link between the defendants does not require a direct commercial link between the so-called ‘anchor’ defendant and each of the other defendants, but rather a commercial link between all the defendants. The condition that ‘the action concerns the same infringement’, refers to the infringement of the same patent by all the defendants, and does not require that the products alleged to be infringing be identical across all the defendants.
IPPT20260320, UPC CFI, President, HyGear v Topsoe
Language of proceedings changed from German to English by party consent (Article 49 (5) UPCA, Rule 323.1. RoP).
IPPT20260319, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Sichuan
Inspection of seized product samples to be conducted in the presence of both parties at oral hearing. (Article 59 UPCA, Article 60 UPCA, Rule 199 RoP). Without the cutting and dissection operations previously indicated in the order of February 13, 2026.
IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Cup&Cino v Alpina
Patent valid and infringed (Article 65 UPCA , Article 25(a) UPCA , Article 26 UPCA). 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.
IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Veolia v Tiru
Patent valid in amended form (Article 65 UPCA, Article 123 (3) EPC ). Claim Interpretation (Article 69 EPC). A claim must be interpreted as a whole, in a logical and consistent manner. Nothing would lead a person skilled in the art reading this claim to believe that [….] each time the word “air” appears, they are free to consider the various options independently of the other instances. The text of the claim takes precedence over the description in the interpretation of a claim where there are certain contradictions between the description and a claim of the patent, and a person skilled in the art would readily identify these contradictions. Amendments – impermissible extension of protection (Article 123 (3) EPC) Claim 1 - main request extends beyond patent as granted. It is sufficient to identify an embodiment covered by the amended patent but not covered by the granted patent to conclude that there has been an impermissible extension of protection. Scenario 4 is covered by claim 1 of the main request, whereas it was not covered by claim 1 of the issued patent, therefore, the scope of protection has been unlawfully extended. Amendments of auxiliary claims 1.1, 1.3, 1.6 (based on the main request) admissible as correction of obvious clerical errors- but rejected. (Rule 30 RoP). The correction of obvious clerical errors in the relevant documents at the first opportunity, does not constitute a new ground and is admissible. Having regard in particular to the second recital of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure, the absence of a specific rule concerning a party’s ability to correct an obvious error does not imply that such a correction would be prohibited in proceedings before the UPC.
IPPT20260318, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, GC Aesthetics v Establishment Labs
Request for security for costs granted against Costa Rican defendant. (Rule 158.1 RoP, Article 69 (4) UPCA). Enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica not considered to be “unduly burdensome”. The assessment to be made is whether “similar or identical” guarantees are in place for recognising and enforcing UPC costs orders in the relevant (non EU/EEA) states. The court requires a standard/reference to assess whether the duration leads proceedings to be "unduly" burdensome, as this implies a standard/reference in the sense of proceeding being "duly" burdensome. As such, where duration alone might not be sufficient to establish “undue burden, it could be taken into consideration when assessing the facts and circumstances regarding the assessment of the concerns of the Defendants. When setting the security amount, consideration should be given to the costs likely to be incurred by introducing the counterclaim for revocation
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). Infringement : Direct, literal use of the teaching of claim 2 (coupled in lasers) of the contested patent. (Article 25 UPCA). The embodiment features a switchable device with at least two switching positions within the meaning of feature 2.2.Offer and supply of contested embodiment within the meaning of Article 26(1) UPCA. (Article 26 UPCA)
IPPT20260313, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Neurocrine v Spruce
Revocation action disposed on becoming devoid of purpose. (Rule 360 RoP) Patent revoked ab initio (Article 101.2 EPC). Patent revoked by the Opposition Division of the EPO after the filing of the defence to the revocation action. Claimant’s request to declare the revocation action devoid of purpose, under the condition that the defendant makes a non-confidential undertaking that it will not enforce any divisional of the patent against the claimant, falls outside the scope of rule 360. The revocation action is solely directed to the (now revoked) patent and not to any other claim scope .The mere fact that the patent has been revoked does not mean that every divisional will suffer the same fate. Costs (Article 69(1) UPCA) The ceiling of recoverable costs is based on a full procedure, with a written phase, an interim phase and an oral phase. Claimant has already filed its Statement of Claim , Reply to the Defence , Defence to the Application to amend the patent and since legal costs are front-loaded, claimant is awarded 80% of the maximum recoverable costs.
IPPT20260313, UPC CFI CD Milan, La Siddhi v Athena
Order to provide security for costs of € 75.000 (Article 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP). Once the defendant substantiates the risk, the claimant must rebut it with concrete evidence. Low net assets created doubt about ability to pay costs. The claimant did not properly contest the financial evidence. SME status does not exempt a party from security orders and the SME status must be substantiated.
IPPT20260312, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Biopsafe v Kaltek
Extension of time by one month for lodging the statement of defence. (Rule 23 RoP, Rule 9 RoP)
IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, NST v Qualcomm
Patent revoked and not infringed (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA). Added matter in claim 1 and 5 .(Article 138 1(c)) The skilled person cannot infer directly and unambiguously that “network interface means” are coupled between the modules and the network, being structurally interposed between them. 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.
IPPT20260311, UPC CFI, LD Munich, BFexaQC v NVIDIA
Patent infringement claim dismissed (Article 25 UPCA). Claim construction (Article 69 EPC). Statements made by the applicant during the grant proceedings do not constitute interpretative material for the interpretation of the granted patent within the meaning of Article 69(1) EPC. Nor are such statements by the applicant during the grant proceedings binding for the purposes of interpretation in subsequent infringement or nullity proceedings. However, they may provide an indication of the skilled person’s understanding of the teaching of the granted patent at the priority date. No amendment of the claim (R. 263 RoP) if, according to the Defendant's Statement of Defence, the attacked product differs in technical details from that described by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim and the Claimant bases the allegation of infringement in the Reply to the Statement of Defence on the technical functioning described by the Defendant, as long as the infringement claim continues to relate to the generally described product and its attacked function. Conditional counterclaim for revocation allowed (R. 25 RoP). It is admissible in procedural terms for the Defendant to file a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action, subject to the condition subsequent that the infringement action is unsuccessful. If this condition is met because the patent at issue is not infringed regardless of its validity, no decision is required on the counterclaim for revocation.
IPPT20260309, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hologic v Siemens
Request to allow Claimant to submit brief formal comments on defendants’ submissions rejected. (Rule 36 RoP). Reasons named are insufficient: Claimant has not specified any new facts, request remains vague. Claimant’s right to be heard is not unduly restricted by the rejection of the request.
IPPT20260306, UPC CFI, LD Milan, KeyMed v PR Medical
Preliminary objection on language of proceedings rejected. (Article 49 UPCA, Rule 19 RoP, Rule 14.2(b) RoP). Rule 14.2. RoP is an exception to be interpreted restrictively. Proceedings shall be conducted in the official language of the contracting member state (Italian) only when conditions of Rule 14.2 (b) RoP are cumulative and considered together. Claimant bears the burden of proof, bearing in mind the stage of the proceedings.
IPPT20260306, UPC CFI, LD Lisbon, Gowling v Zentiva
Access to written pleadings and submissions granted to law firm in a closed case where a final decision has been rendered. (Article 45 UPCA, Rule 262.1 RoP). In such a case, interests laid down in Art 45 UPCA are properly balanced and, unless relevant reasons arise access should be granted. Request regarding evidence not sufficiently substantiated, therefore inadmissible.
IPPT20260303, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, ABM v Philips
Counterclaim action successful. Patent revoked in entirety for lack of novelty. (Article 54 EPC , Rule 25 RoP). The patent lacks novelty as Claim 1 of the patent is fully anticipated by prior art (JP748). Claim 1 of the Auxilliary Request is obvious, starting from the same prior art. The unamended dependent claims, cannot change this.
IPPT20260227, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Irdeto v DJI
Defendant 1 to pay the fee for Counterclaim for revocation on submission of a separate counterclaim. (Rule 370.7 RoP , Rule 25 RoP). If a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid. If one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by other defendants.
IPPT20260226, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v MediaTek
Suspension of inspection of files by a third party granted in light of applicant’s request for a panel review. (Rule 262.1(b) RoP, Rule 335 RoP , Rule 333 RoP). A judge-rapporteur whose procedural order or decision is subject to review by the panel may be entitled to and, if applicable, also obliged to suspend their order or decision pursuant to R. 335 RoP. Suspension ensures that the forthcoming order or decision of the panel review is not interfered with by compliance with the order or decision, which could render the review ineffective.
IPPT20260225, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GSK v. Pfizer
One week extension for the submission of the Rejoinder / Reply / Defence , for the application for amendment of the patent. (Rule 9.3 RoP, Rule 29 RoP, Rule 30 RoP). Extension will not affect the dates already set for the interim conference and oral hearing.
IPPT20260225, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, beMatrix v Yaham Technology
Ex-parte preliminary injunction for seizure of infringing goods at a trade show granted against the defendant .(Article 62(1) UPCA, Article 25(a) UPCA, Rule 211.1 (b), Rule 209.2 RoP, Rule 212 RoP) . Attacked embodiment infringes claim 1 of the patent.. It is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid.
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, TRUMPF v IPG
Patent valid and infringed (Article 25 UPCA , Article 65 UPCA). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC). Claim 6 - input fiber bundle: the term “an” must be understood as a numeral. Contrary to the defendant’s view, feature 6.1.1.1 provides for only one inner input fiber, which serves as a clear reference point for (at least) one set of input fibers arranged radially outward. The wording “an inner fiber” already points in this direction, […] especially since the relevant original language does not state “[only] one inner fiber.” Infringement - literal use of the teaching of claim 6 of the patent. (Article 25 UPCA) Features 6.1.1, 6.1.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2, and 6.3.1 are also realized.
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, UPM-Kymmene v International N&H
Patent revoked: lack of inventive step, added matter. (Article 56 EPC, Article 138(1)(c) EPC). Claim Construction (Article 69 EPC). Claim 1, being a product claim, is not limited to the use of the claimed sugar composition as an intermediate product in any particular process. Claim 1 does not correspond to an intermediate product formed as part of a new and advantageous process for producing a xylose-enriched sugar mixture which can be subjected to crystallisation. Skilled person interprets the “amount of marker molecule” in claim 1 as being measured relative to the sugar composition rather than relative to the total sugar concentration in the composition. Description does not provide a “definition” of the basis for calculating the amount of marker molecule in a sugar composition. The skilled person would expect a clear definition of how to calculate the amount of marker molecule. In the absence of a definition or technical teaching, it is in the interest of legal certainty that third parties can rely on the ordinary wording of the claim read by the skilled person in its technical context. The patentee is responsible for drafting claims that adequately define the subject matter for which protection is sought. Particularly for composition claims containing numerical ranges of ingredients. For such claims, the skilled person may reasonably expect that the patentee is precise and diligent in specifying the components of a claimed composition. Added matter (Article 138(1) (c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC) Technically relevant information - not derivable from the application as filed. Lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Absent an inextricable link between a claimed composition and an inventive process for the production of a known end-product, no inventive step can be acknowledged for an otherwise non-inventive composition relied upon as an intermediate product.
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD Munich, UERAN v Xiaomi
Confidentiality order amended to include omitted paragraphs. (Rule 262 RoP). No reason to exclude claimant's patent attorneys from confidentiality club. (Article 48 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA, Rule. 262A RoP). It follows from Art. 48 UPCA that a party has the fundamental right to freely choose whether it wishes to be represented by a lawyer or a European Patent Attorney or by a team of both, optionally assisted by patent attorneys.Neither Art. 48 UPCA nor Art. 58 UPCA implies that the right to freely choose a representative can be restricted with regard to whether the representative has a legal or a technical background. As with technically qualified judges, the competence of patent attorneys is not limited to purely technical matters.
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, CD Munich, TCL Europe v Corning
Revocation action dismissed (Article 65 UPCA). Inventive step (Article 56 EPC). A realistic starting point, in the opinion of the Court, is typically a prior art disclosure as a whole. Absent a specific reason or pointer in the disclosure itself (or based on common general knowledge) to do so, the selection of a particular example composition as a “starting point”, merely because it happens to come “closest” to the claimed subject matter in terms of structural components bears the risk that such selection itself already involves hindsight. Where the features of a patent claim, in an interdependent way, even if they are not synergetic in the sense of having a special combination effect, provide a solution to the objective problem, ignoring these interdependencies and dividing the objective problem up into separate problems amounts to hindsight reasoning which is to be avoided in the assessment of inventive step.
IPPT20260224, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GSK v. Moderna
Amendment of claim allowed (Rule 263.2 RoP)Claimant allowed to include allegedly infringing product “mNEXSPIKE”.
IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Messerle v Sabert
Patent valid and not infringed. (Article 65 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA) Claim interpretation on the basis of the language of the patent (German) (Article 69 EPC, Article 70 (1) EPC). Although the language of the proceedings is English, interpretation and considerations are based on the German text of the patent and the English translations of the claims are read similarly. The German term “Knick” as used in the German language version of claim 1 is understood by the person skilled in the art as a portion of the claimed packaging that is created by folding of card- or paperboard along a predefined folding line, causing in the folded state a visible sharp crease at the interface of two walls or wall-shaped portions of the packaging. Claimant’s argument that a bending radius cannot be used as clear distinction between the English terms “bend” and “fold” […] does not lead to a different result. New pieces of prior art (enclosures J, M, N, O, P) introduced by the defendant disregarded as late filed (Rule 9 RoP, Rule 25 RoP). Rule 25.1 requires the counterclaim for revocation to contain an indication of the facts relied on, and the evidence relied on, where available and an indication of any further evidence which will be offered in support. Submitting evidence for prior state of the art or for prior use at a later time requires a reasonable justification regarding to the timeliness. A commercial brochure (Exhibit D4) as such, is a stand-alone piece of prior art distinct from a physical product. (Rule 263 RoP) The physical product filed as Exhibit J may not be used to establish the disclosure of the brochure D4; it must also be avoided to establish the disclosure of D4 in “hindsight” with the knowledge of the physical product filed as Exhibit J. Already from the outset, obtaining the physical product that is being advertised in a commercial brochure is not a valid approach to establishing the disclosure of the stand-alone publication. Obtaining and filing the Enclosures J, M, N, O, P hence cannot be seen as a reaction to Claimant’s arguments and an attempt to counter Claimant’s arguments in the Reply against the disclosure of certain features within D4.
IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Gowling v Merz
Public access to registry granted to law firm (Art. 45 UPCA, Rule 262.1(b)) .After anonymisation of personal data. Limited to documents regarding unreasonable delay. (Rule 211.4 RoP)
IPPT20260219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Leap Tools v Wizart
Request for security for costs dismissed (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158 RoP). Simple reference to Claimant’s registered office in Canada does not demonstrate that a cost order would be unduly burdensome. Claimant’s annual revenue estimated to be less than EUR 20 million in 2025 , is not so low that one could assume, without further explanation, that a cost order may not be enforceable.
IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Dai Nippon v Zapp
Confidentiality club regarding sensitive commercial information and technical know-how of the defendant. (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A (2) RoP)
IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Corning v Hisense
Withdrawal by party consent. (Rule 265 RoP). Partial withdrawal of infringement action allowed. Rule 265.1 RoP also applies if the action is not withdrawn in its entirety, but only in relation to some of several defendants.
IPPT20260218, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, GlaxoSmithKline v Moderna
Leave to amend claim granted. (Rule 263 RoP) Application to admit allegedly late-filed submissions and arguments dismissed. (Rule 9 RoP). There is no need for a limitation of an injunction to specific infringing products based on what is claimed. (Rule 263 RoP).In the present case, GSK, requested general injunctive relief to prohibit infringement of claim 1 and several other claims, where the specific products are mentioned as examples, but the requested relief is not limited to: “A liposome (…) such as the Infringing Products (the Spikevax Infringing Products and mRESVIA Infringing Products individually and jointly), and/or further versions or variants thereof,”[emphasis added]. Relief against other products, in particular new versions or variants that already fall within the scope of protection of the claims, already fall within the request from the start of the proceedings. Thus, there is no need to amend the claim to include the new allegedly infringing product “mNEXSPIKE”.The front-loaded character of the proceedings does not require a claimant to anticipate every defence/argument of defendants in its SoC. (Rule 9 (1) RoP).Arguments and further evidence submitted by GSK in its Reply, are permitted as they mostly further expand on arguments GSK already made in the SoC.
IPPT20260217, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Valeo v Robert Bosch
Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). The “same alleged infringement” (Article 33.1(b) UPCA) refers to the infringement of the same patent. Commercial link between defendents undisputed.
IPPT20260217, UPC CFI, President, Xiaomi v Malikie
Language of proceedings changed from German to English for reasons of fairness. (Article 49 (5) UPCA , Rule 323 RoP). The need for strategic coordination and technical support in a common working language is a decisive factor in the balancing of all interests. Taking into account that the language primarily chosen is not only a financial burden, but also a disadvantage in view of strict time limits that must be met in UPC proceedings.
IPPT20260216, UPC CFI, ETRI v Gorenie
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265 RoP)
IPPT20260213, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v SYR
Order setting out decisions taken at interim conference (Rule. 105.5 RoP). Withdrawal of preliminary objection regarding failure to serve application for interim relief, admissibility of photographs and seized product samples, value of the action set at € 500.000
IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Align v Angelalign
Preliminary injunction granted . (Article 62(1) UPCA , Rule 209 RoP, Rule 211 RoP) . Infringement is assumed. Late filed non infringement arguments submitted in the rejoinder. (Article 25 (a)UPCA, Rule 52 RoP). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) Defendants disagreement with claim interpretation applied by the EPO in the examination concerning lack of validity of the patent does not mean that the burden of proof should shift to the patent proprietor (Article 65 UPCA, Article 54 UPCA). It is not more likely than not that the patent in suit is not valid(Article 65 UPCA). The mere fact that the Applicant has relied on combinations of claim 1 with sub-claims, does not lead to the invalidity of claim 1 being more likely than not. The liability of a managing director applies even more so to a financial holding company – Belkin v Philips . (Article 25 UPCA). When no action going beyond the typical role of shareholder/financial holding is alleged, the application against this defendant has to be rejected.
IPPT20260212, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Honeywell v Sovex
Rejection of preliminary objections confirmed by panel (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). The Court establishes (international) jurisdiction and competence based on the facts brought forward (Article 71b(2) Brussels, Article 28 Brussels). According to Art. 28 Brussels I recast regulation, the court has to decide on its jurisdiction under Regulation ex officio. Competence regarding managing directors (Article 32(1)(a) UPCA, Article 25 UPCA, Article 63 UPCA). In the Statement of Claim, Honeywell has asserted that all Defendants commit infringing acts themselves. Such an allegation can be done either by stating infringing acts of defendants jointly and individually. It has furthermore stated that given the specific circumstances, Solvest V, Solvest VI, Solvest VII, Solvink and De Kleine Beuk can be held responsible for alleged infringing acts by other entities. Whether these Defendants in fact carried out acts stated in Art. 25 UPCA and/or whether (lack of) other actions lead to the conclusion 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. R. 20(1) RoP does not require that a defendant has to be given another opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the Defendants were able to present their arguments in their application for review. Internal competence of divisions is not governed by Brussels I but a UPC internal matter (Article 33 UPCA). No hierarchy between competence based on the place where the actual or threatened infringement has occurred or may occur in Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, and competence based on the residence or principal place of business of the defendant in Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA. There is no need to look for connecting factors in the territory of the local division seized in relation to each defendant to establish competence. To determine competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, the existence of infringing activities, for example an offer or the possibility to obtain the allegedly infringing devices through a website accessible in the Contracting Member State hosting the local division, needs to be established. Appeal of rejection of preliminary objection (R. 333 RoP, R. 220.2 RoP). If a Preliminary objection is rejected, as an exception to the general principle, leave to appeal may be given by the judge-rapporteur and the order may be appealed against without prior panel review under R.333.1 RoP being required.
IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Avago v Telefónica
Withdrawal by party consent (R. 265.2 RoP). Although Rule 265.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure requires a decision on costs, such a decision was unnecessary in this case in view of the parties’ unanimous statement that no decision on costs was required.
IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy
Withdrawal of infringement action by party consent. (Rule 265.1 RoP) Conditions for reimbursement of court fees not met. (Rule 370.9 RoP). When the Court was informed of the settlement, the oral proceedings had already been completed. (Rule 370.9(c) RoP). The termination of the proceedings did not result in significant time savings for the Court.
IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Fives v REEL
Claims for damages for loss of profits dismissed because it cannot be concluded that the claimant is entitled to the amount claimed or that an order for payment of damages can be made (Article 68 UPCA, Article 13 Enforcement Directive). National law applies to a claim for damages for loss of profit where the facts of the case were established before the Unified Patent Court came into force on 1 June 2023. ven when claiming loss of profit due to a price reduction, it must be possible to establish that, in the ordinary course of events or in the light of the particular circumstances, the profit would likely have been made. In this regard, the offer must be assessed for its reasonableness, taking all circumstances into account. The possibility of an alternative offer from the infringer must be taken into account in the assessment if it is established that the client would in any event have requested a further offer. Since both national (German) law on damages and the UPCA are based on Directive 2004/48/EC (the Enforcement Directive), there should be no differing outcomes in the present case when assessing a claim for damages for loss of profit.
IPPT20260211, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Canon v Katun
Patent valid and infringed. (Article 25 UPCA).VALIDITY. Counterclaim for revocation unfounded : No added matter (Article 138 EPC). The Court cannot identify any relevant differences between the new translations of claim 1 (from Japanese) and the application as filed. Even if considering only the pure wording, the translation does not necessarily lead to a different meaning. Inventive step present (Article 56 EPC).The stronger a pointer towards the claimed solution, the lower is the threshold for a reasonable expectation of success. Whether there is a reasonable expectation of success depends on the circumstances of the case. The more unexplored a technical field of research, the more difficult it was to make predictions about its successful conclusion and the lower the expectation of success. The Defendants did not show a pointer to the solution, which would have directed the skilled person from D3 (prior art) to a next step in the direction of the invention claimed in the patent in suit. No arguments presented as to how such a pointer could be derived from the prior art D3. INFRINGEMENT. The challenged embodiments directly infringe the patent by making literal use of the teaching of claim 1. (Article 25 UPCA, Article 69 EPC, Protocol on the interpretation of Article 69 )The infringement is challenged only with regard to feature 1.1 and based on their interpretation of claim 1 as a system claim requiring a developer receiving apparatus. From the Court’s interpretation of claim 1, the developer receiving apparatus itself, and the printer or parts of it, are not subject of claim 1. Claim 1 states that the developer supply container is ‘mountable’ to a developer receiving apparatus. The skilled person will understand this to mean that the parts of the developer receiving apparatus named in feature 1.1 — the developer receiving portion, the receiving opening and the supported portion — are not claimed to be present. 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. No order for security granted (Art. 82(2) UPCA, R. 158 RoP) the Defendants have not provided any justification for making enforcement in this case dependent on the provision of security.
IPPT20260210, UPC CFI, LD Milan, AWM v Progress Maschinen
Appeal against a CFI upholding a counterclaim for revocation has automatic suspensive effect. Stay of proceedings ordered. (Article 74(2) UPCA, Rule. 150 RoP, Rule 295 RoP). The automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety, including the parts relating to legal costs. (Article 69 UPCA) Interpretation that “the automatic suspensive effect provided by law would be limited solely to the provisions of the decision relating strictly to the validity of the patent” introduces an arbitrary limitation that would exclude any suspensive effect relating to other points of the decision, including those relating to legal costs not contemplated by the provision’s wording. The court deviates from the decision in CD Paris, dated 29.4.2025 (Roche Diabetes v Tandem Diabetes), the aforementioned decision did not consider the applicability of Article 74(2) UPCA at all. And refers to order of LD Brussels dated 2.5.2025 ( OrthoApnea ) where the Court determined that it was permissible to stay the proceedings for cost determination, even in cases where the automatic and mandatory suspensive effect stipulated in Article 74(2) UPCA does not apply.
IPPT20260205, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Adeia Guides v Disney
Withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on parties reaching a settlement. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule. 265.1 RoP, Rule 25 RoP)
IPPT20260204, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe
No default judgment justified as a sanction for lack of diligence in providing a bank guarantee of € 200.000 within the ordered time limit of 16 January 2026 (R. 158.5 RoP, R. 355 RoP). It should be noted that R. 158.5 RoP provides that the reporting judge ‘may’ issue a default judgment, which leaves the judge with discretion in accordance with the principles of procedural efficiency as well as the principles of fairness and proportionality. KEEEX provided, within the time limit set by the order (i.e. 16 January 2026) proof that the sum of €200,000 was frozen in its account for this purpose and, in view of the reporting judge’s response dated 16 January 2026 at the end of the day, provided the documents corresponding to the required bank guarantee as early as the following 26 January.
IPPT20260204, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Bostik v Henkel
Defendants ordered to produce evidence in the form of technical data sheets of older products (Article 59 UPCA, Rule 190 RoP).It is reasonable and proportionate to grant the request to produce documents.The information is useful and necessary for Bostik to respond to the defendants' argument regarding the obsolescence of information from 2016.
IPPT20260202, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, 10xGenomics v Curio Bioscience
Cost decision on the reimbursability of costs in PI proceedings (Article. 69 UPCA, Rule. 150, 151, 152 RoP). Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately. The decision on the reimbursability of costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. The ceilings for PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately – follow up to Decision of Ortovox v Mammut). If the costs in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately within a ceiling that applies specifically to those proceedings, the costs of both the PI proceedings and the main proceedings are capped by the applicable ceiling. It is inadmissible to mix the costs of the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits or to shift them from one proceeding to the other, even if the results of the PI proceedings may be used in subsequent proceedings on the merits. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that it remains within the ceiling during the PI proceedings. Compensation for representation costs (Rule. 152.2 RoP). For partial success, the applicable ceiling shall correspond to the proportion of success of the party seeking cost recovery. Accordingly, First, the reimbursable representation costs must be determined based on the quota set by the Court in accordance with Art. 69 UPCA in conjunction with R. 118.5 RoP. Second, the ceiling, which is reduced in accordance with the quota set by the Court, must be applied.
IPPT20260202, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Hewlett-Packard v Andreas Rentmeister
Service of the Statement of claim by an alternative method (R. 275.2 RoP). The publication of an order on the Court’s website, of which the Defendant has been notified via e-mail, constitutes good service on Defendant.
IPPT20260130, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Panel review of a judge rapporteur penalty order. (R. 333 RoP) . A penalty order may be issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone. (R. 354.4 RoP, R 1.2(a) RoP). Rule 354.4 RoP makes clear in its last sentence, that “after having heard both parties the Court may make an appropriate order which may be subject to an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.2.”. “The Court” is interpreted pursuant to Rule 1.2(a) RoP , which states that the respective act may be performed by the presiding judge or the judge rapporteur of the panel. Rule 354.4 RoP is the only place, where the Rules refer to “first instance panel of the division” as opposed to “panel of the Court”. The rule wants to make clear, that an enforcement application is to be handled by the same Panel – in the sense of an organizational unit of the CFI – which dealt with the decision on the merits. There is no reason, why an application for enforcement should always be dealt with by the whole panel. Whether the operative part of the panel decision or order has been complied with, can adequately and more efficiently be dealt with, if the Judge rapporteur decides upon the application first and if the Panel only gets involved upon application for review . Any enforcement order may be reviewed by the CoA, but does not exclude a panel review under R. 333 RoP beforehand. R. 333 RoP does not have to be restricted to “case management decisions or orders” which are of organizational purpose. Rather “case management” can be understood broadly so it also encompasses orders, which deal with if a decision or order has been complied with.
IPPT20260128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Labrador Diagnostics v bioMérieux
Infringement action of an amended patent in a bifurcated case dismissed. (Article 25 UPCA, Article 33 UPCA). The infringement action is unfounded. The challenged embodiments do not infringe the patent in suit in its form as upheld by the CD Milan. Due to the amendment of the patent by the decision of CD Milan, the Local Division is bound to the new wording of the claims. There is no offering for direct infringement. Since it is not the Defendants who offer to use the method, but the users who implement the method. “Offering for use” aims at the offering of the process implemented by third parties for who the Defendants need to sign responsibility. That is not the case here. In a bifurcated case in which the Court does not find infringement the question of validity of the patent in suit is no longer decisive for the infringement action. (Article 33 UPCA)
IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, CD Paris, ALD France v Nanoval
Panel review confirms dismissal of Preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP, R. 333 RoP). Parent and subsidiary companies are not automatically “same parties” (Article 33(4) UPCA): depends on having the same or independent business activities. The assessment of the unity of the undertaking in the context of an antitrust action is subject to different requirements and must take other interests into account, meaning that the principles developed there are not transferable. The risk of conflicting decisions by the Central Division and the Local Division does not constitute grounds for a stay. (R. 295 (m) RoP). R. R. 295(m) RoP must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the right to an effective remedy and to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time The requirement of effective legal protection demands a prompt decision on the action for annulment as well.
IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, President, Nordmeccanica v Bobst Manchester
Language of proceedings changed to language of the patent , namely English. (Article 49 UPCA , Rule 323 RoP). On the grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances – in particular those related to the case and the respective position of the parties – shall be considered. If the outcome of balancing of interest is equal, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor. (Art. 49 (5) UPCA)
IPPT20260126, UPC CFI, President, Amazon v InterDigital
Change of language of proceedings from German to English granted. (Art. 49 UPCA , Rule. 323 RoP) . No substantiation of any circumstances which could justify not changing the language of the present proceedings. Order not conditional on specific translation or interpretation arrangements (not requested).
IPPT20260123, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon Beheer v Inverquark
No basis for ordering a supplementary expert opinion following a detailed expert description regarding an ex-parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196.4 RoP, Rule 197 RoP, Rule 199 RoP) It is incompatible to reach a decision on the timely release of the expert’s detailed description by requesting clarification of factual accuracy of the prepared description. Protection of the respondent does not require the obtaining of a supplementary expert opinion. Unredacted version of the expert’s description to be disclosed to the applicant in the absence of any confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent. (Rule 262A RoP)
IPPT20260123, UPC CFI LD Paris, Guardant Health v Sophia Genetics
Patent valid and not infringed. Application for provisional measures rejected. (Art. 25 UPCA. Rule 211 RoP). No unreasonable delay in seeking provisional measures. (R. 211.4 RoP). The starting point for the reasonable delay in seeking provisional measures is the date on which a correspondence began between the parties on the subject of the present dispute. The Court considers that a three-month period constitutes a reasonable delay to prepare action by gathering the necessary evidence, given that the case involves several patents and a complex and sophisticated technology. Added Matter (Article 123 EPC). The patent and dependent Claims 2 to 14 of the patent are more likely than not to be invalid because of added-matter. The Court must ascertain what the skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously using their common general knowledge, as seen objectively with respect to the date of filing, from the whole PCT application as filed. On the basis of this, implicitly disclosed subject-matter shall also be considered as part of its content. However, the content of an application must not be considered to be a reservoir from which features pertaining to separate embodiments of the application could be combined in order to artificially create a particular embodiment. The invention as now worded in the granted Claim 1 cannot directly and unambiguously be derived from the patent as filed. Allegations of infringement by GUARDANT HEALTH suffer from a "lack of evidence": The burden of proof for the alleged infringement lies with the party invoking it . (Art. 25 UPCA , R. 211.2 RoP). Applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence of an infringement of the patent by "DDM access" with a sufficient degree of certainty . It is not sufficient to rely mainly on a press release to demonstrate how SOPHIA GENETICS's software processes data.
IPPT20260121, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bosch v Valeo
Jurisdiction and competence of the court. (Article 33 UPCA). CD Paris lacks jurisdiction to hear the infringement action against defendants not named in the previous order. (Article 33 (1) UPCA). Although the order was issued without hearing two companies, it took into account the situation corresponding to multiple defendants, some of whom are established or domiciled in the contracting member states and others established or domiciled outside those states.
IPPT20260120, UPC CFI, President, Pinterest v Nagravision
Change of language of the proceedings into the language of the patent (English) allowed. (Art. 49 (5) UPCA ,Rule. 323 RoP) . The need of several Defendants to communicate and coordinate the dispute should be given due consideration in addition to domiciliation of the parties. The drawback of speed and efficiency being affected if proceedings are not conducted in the usual working language, is of particular importance in identifying a fairness issue considering the strict time limits set by the rules of procedure.
IPPT20260119, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Huawei v HMD Global
Further confidentiality measures ordered (Rule 262A RoP). Protection extended to future submissions dealing with FRAND licence negotiations between parties to avoid identical orders after each submission. Covers if confidential information should be discussed in an oral hearing or repeated in a decision on the merits.
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) Inventive step - common general knowledge of the skilled person (Article 56 EPC) Documents not part of common general knowledge : Document not sufficiently widely disseminated to form part of the basic knowledge of a person skilled in the art. If they constitute specialized literature, and it has not been established that they are documents forming part of the basic technical background . Infringement. (Article 25 UPCA, Rule 263 RoP) of unconditionally amended claims 1 and 6 of the unitary patent , reproduced in entirety. Cross border injunction for infringement of Swiss part of European patent, denied. (Article 4 Brussels Regulation) Infringement of the national part of the European patent granted by a state outside the UPC is assesed in light of the european patent as originally granted. The Local Division is unable to assess the substance of the alleged infringement of the Swiss portion of the patent and cannot stay proceedings, in the absence of pending invalidity proceedings in Switzerland. A unitary patent takes effect retroactively, (Articles 64(1) , 68 EPC , Article 4(1) Unitary patent regulation) as of the date of the European patent became a unitary patent, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 64(1) and 68 of the EPC and Article 4(1) of the Unitary patent regulation. Furthermore, the patent as granted, so long as it has not been judicially invalidated, is deemed valid from the date of its grant. Defendant cannot rely on exempting itself from liability on grounds that it did not know or had no reasonable grounds to know it was infringing (Article 68(4) UPCA) when, on the one hand, it exploited the product alleged to be infringing without taking any steps to revoke the patent, and, on the other hand, that it could not rule out the possibility of a subsequent limitation of the patent which is conflicting with the statement of defence, made prior to the amendment to the patent.
IPPT20260115, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona Patents v Google
Patent valid (Article 65 UPCA) but not infringed. (Article 25 UPCA) The law prioritizes registration over the entitlement where a claimant wants to obtain a decision to remove the effects of a granted patent (Rule 8.6 RoP, Rule. 25 RoP) . It is for the registered proprietor and the entitled proprietor to apply to the Court for the substitution of the registered proprietor in a situation of non-identity (Rule 42.2, 61.2 RoP). Different situation in a case of a counterclaim of revocation where entitlement of the registered person is effectively rebutted in the infringement action and the question of the entitlement is decisive for the infringement. No direct infringement because not every claimed component is shown. (Article. 25 UPCA) If a product consists of different components, the alleged infringing product must show every claimed component. Cases where only certain features of a product are infringed may be examples for an indirect infringement (Article. 26 UPCA), but not for direct infringement. Order of judge rapporteur not allowing the exchange of further written pleading and not allowing late amendment of the case to include indirect infringement confirmed by panel (Rule. 36 RoP, Rule. 263 RoP, Rule. 333.2 and 333.3 RoP)
IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Heraeus v Vibrantz
Re-establishment of rights granted in the context of a failure to observe a time limit for initiating a procedure for cost decision in the context of a cost ratio. ( Rule 320 RoP , Rule 151 RoP) Dissenting opinion issued pursuant to Article. 36 Statute of the UPC & Article 78 UPCA. Claimant missed the application deadline (Rule 151 RoP). Where a cost ratio has been determined, both parties are required to lodge within the time limit an application for a decision on their respective costs. By contrast, it is the opinion of the majority of the panel that the possibility for the other party to comment is limited to raising objections to the cost items listed by the applicant party - such objections cannot form the basis for offsetting the other party’s own regularly incurred cost items. (Rule 156.1 RoP). Where a party has failed to observe a time limit, despite all due care having been taken, the relevant panel of the Court may upon the request of that party re-establish the right or means of redress. (Rule 320.1 RoP). The requirement of “all due care” is in principle met if the party has taken all reasonable precautions to enable it to meet the deadline and the deadline was missed for a reason beyond the party's control , this includes knowledge of the legal system and the relevant decisions. A represented party must assume responsibility for any fault on the part of their UPC representative. Inadequate knowledge of the law is generally not sufficient grounds for re-establishment of rights. However, the Claimant – exceptionally – cannot be accused of misjudging the legal situation in the specific circumstances of the case at hand, despite being represented by a lawyer. Dissenting opinion of Judge Brinkman disagreeing with the narrow interpretation of the regulations. (Article. 36 of The Statute of The Unified Patent Court, Article 78 UPCA, Article 69 UPCA ) . The application to be inadmissible due to a lack of legal interest – application should be admitted in the cost proceedings, thus making re-establishment of rights unnecessary and devoid of legal interest. It is clear from the Rules of Procedure and Article 69 UPCA that a “cost decision” means a decision on the reimbursement of costs. However, in this case the Claimant is not requesting a cost decision, they are only requesting that their 40% portion be used as a deduction from the amount they have to pay to the Defendants
IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, ZTE Corporation v Samsung Electronics
Defendant’s request for extending written procedure dismissed. (Rule . 36 RoP). There is no reason apparent why Samsung’s right to be heard necessitates extending the written procedure. The oral hearing is already scheduled to take place in approximately two months, so that the conclusion of the written proceedings must not be delayed. Confidentiality club granted in part, for the production request and the third-party licence agreement. (Rule . 262A RoP.) The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to Samsung and to its licensee. The protection relates to the specific information only - the abstract FRAND discussion will take place publicly.
IPPT20260113, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Emboline v AorticLab
Infringement action dismissed (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement; device normally operated in a non-infringing manner (Article 25 UPCA). Patent infringement is not excluded by the fact that a device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and customers therefore do not regularly make use of the patented teaching, as long as the use of the patented teaching remains possible when using the device. In the case of a medical device, however, the possibility of an irregular but patent compliant use can only be considered as patent infringement if such use is in line with professional practice and the recognised rules of medical science. Admissible counterclaim for revocation subject to intra-procedural condition (only if the patent is found infringed) (R. 25 RoP). The unconditional transition from a counterclaim to a dependent counterclaim, which is dependent on the occurrence of an intra-procedural condition (i.e. a finding of patent infringement by the Court), means that the counterclaim is limited in accordance with Rule 263.3 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). If, in accordance with the counterclaimant’s request, no decision is made on the Counterclaim, the counterclaimant must bear the costs for the counterclaim (Article 69(3) UPCA).
IPPT20260112, UPC CFI, CD Paris, WhiteWater v American Wave
Decision by default (Rule 355 RoP). Patent partially revoked (Article 65 UPCA). Claim 1 lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Claim interpretation (Article 69 EPC) Feature 4 of claim 1; “valve structure (24, 26, 28): The language of feature 4 makes clear that only two valves are mandatory, a gas supply valve (26) and a vent valve (28). This is confirmed by the patent specification. Interpreting feature 3 of claim 1 using dependent claim 3: Although claim 3 is not subject to this revocation action, its dependency on claim 1 implies that claim 1 encompasses embodiments where the controller is partly located at the facility and partly at a remote location. Lack of inventive step – technical contribution (Article 56 EPC). When assessing inventive step, only the features that contribute to the technical effect shall be taken into consideration. D3 provides the skilled person with a clear incentive to equip the apparatus of D1 with a mobile application controller that performs the sequence of feature 2.2, featuring a software interface that enables users to create wave profiles, according to feature 3. Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether the mere addition of a wave creation module constitutes a technical contribution. Since the user selects the parameters according to their personal preferences this choice does not appear to produce a further technical effect on the apparatus’s operation beyond what is already achieved according to a pre-programmed wave profile.
IPPT20260107, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno
European patent revoked (Article 65 UPCA) Added subject matter (Article 138 EPC) . The removal or replacement of a feature is not considered added-subject matter if the feature is not described as being essential in the application. Any features which, even if mentioned throughout the application in the context of the invention, do not actually contribute to the solution of the technical problem are not essential features. Feature 1.2 : using several techniques of location simultaneously is not provided by the application which discloses the use of a single technique at a time , but not the three techniques or two of them at the same time. Feature 1.4 : ranking involves a comparison between time-dependent and time-independent click-through rates , is not disclosed by the content of the application. The application only discloses that click through rates may be stored as a function of the location or the time of the query and, thus, not as a factor which is independent of these criteria. Inventive Step (Article 56 EPC) For completeness claim 1 also lacks inventive step in view of the document ’BP07’ completed with the teaching of the document BP08’. Application to amend patent (Article 123 (2) EPC, Rule 30 RoP) . Auxiliary Requests II – XVII not admissible as they not compliant with the requirements of Rule 30 (1) 'RoP' and don't enable the Court to unambiguously understand the scope of the proposed amendments . The Auxiliary Request is unable to remedy the detected defect, the patent remains invalid even in the formulation proposed by the Auxiliary Request. The defendant in a counterclaim for revocation is entitled to amend the patent, provided the relevant application is included in the statement of defence (or meets the filing deadline for this application) and contains the information referred to in Rule 30 ‘RoP’. This includes the language of the application, an indication of whether the amendments are conditional or unconditional, and an explanation of how the amendments comply with Articles 84 and 123 (2) (3) ‘EPC’ and why the proposed amended claims are valid. Rule 30 (1) (c) also requires that the proposed amendments must be reasonable in number in the circumstances of the case. Requirements objective in character: the deadline within which the application must be filed, must contain at least one amendment, and that the same (or the same amendments) must be formulated in the language of the patent . Conversely, matters of judicial discretion are the assessment of clarity, sufficiency of the explanation regarding validity and infringement, and the reasonableness of the number of amendments. Necessity for consolidated documents where the proposed amendments have a significant impact on the patent. A request for the deletion of one or more claims may not require the concurrent submission of a document containing the full set of the claims. Content of the patent is the responsibility of the applicant, no manipulative intervention by the Court is permitted, or, no assistance may be provided by the Court to the party in producing a clear and intelligible draft .
IPPT20260105, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Nera Innovations v Xiaomi Communication
Decision on reimbursement of representation costs to the Defendant in appeal proceedings concerning the service of the statement of claim. (Article 69 UPCA, Rule 150 RoP, Rule 152 RoP, Rule 220 RoP)
Proportional reduction of attorney's fees by two-thirds (Art. 48 (4) UPCA.). Procedural issue did not require the involvement of more than one lawyer, whereas 3 were hired. The involvement of a patent attorney for a non-technical question is not appropriate . Upper limit for reimbursable representation costs is not applicable in appeal proceedings ,a higher reimbursement of attorney's feesis not justified for for procedural issues. Value of Eur 1.5 million set for the infringement proceedings is irrelevant ; the appeal concerns only a fraction of this amount .
