Hands-on commentary on UPC decisions, key developments in IP law, and news from SONN.
In this decision, the Munich Local Chamber addresses highly practical questions regarding the adaptation of infringement allegations and the admissibility of conditional counterclaims for revocation. The Court clarified…
Read more →Jul 20, 2026
In this landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses key issues regarding indirect patent infringement and the procedural requirements in proceedings for provisional measures. With respect…
Read more →In this decision, the Mannheim Local Chamber examines the requirements for the international and local jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court, particularly when defendants are domiciled outside the European Union. The…
Read more →In this decision, the Vienna Local Chamber emphasizes the extensive duties of parties to submit evidence and arguments in a timely manner in proceedings before the Unified Patent Court. The Rules of Procedure require…
Read more →Jul 20, 2026
In these proceedings, the Milan Central Division addresses the consequences of a complete revocation of the patent in suit by the European Patent Office on a parallel revocation action pending before the Unified Patent…
Read more →Jul 13, 2026
The party challenging the party had raised over 50 grounds for invalidity (12 based on claims exceeding the scope of the disclosure; 3 based on lack of novelty; 1 based on lack of industrial applicability; and 6…
Read more →Jul 10, 2026
The term “the same invention” in Article 87 EPC is to be interpreted such that a claimed invention is to be regarded as the same invention as the invention in an earlier application if a person skilled in the art can…
Read more →Jul 8, 2026
When assessing the inventive step under Art 56 EPC from a legal perspective, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed with knowledge of the invention, i.e. retrospectively.…
Read more →Jul 6, 2026
For reasons of efficiency and in view of the urgency of an application for interim measures, R. 19.5 RoP shall apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings for provisional measures. A referral to the competent division is…
Read more →Jul 2, 2026
The intervener may not engage in actions or make statements that contradict those of the party it supports. An objection to a request to withdraw an appeal under R 265.1 RoP made by the party it supports is therefore…
Read more →Jun 25, 2026
In proceedings for provisional measures, there will often be reasons to allow the successful party an interim award of costs. This allows the successful party to recover, on an interim basis, at least part of the costs…
Read more →The defendant in a counterclaim for revocation of a patent is entitled to amend the patent, provided that the corresponding request is contained in the statement of defence (or at least filed in due time) and contains…
Read more →Jun 22, 2026
The patent was granted to the applicant, but not for Malta, as it was not a member of the EPC when the original application was filed. When the request for unitary effect was filed in 2025, Malta was a member of the…
Read more →Jun 19, 2026
The defendant disputes the admissibility of a revocation action brought by the French subsidiary of a German company, while the parent company had already filed a counterclaim for revocation against the same patent in…
Read more →Jun 18, 2026
A request for an order to lay open books under R 1311.1 (c) and R 141 to 144 RoP constitutes part of the procedure for the determination of the amount of damages and compensation, which is governed by Chapter 4 of Part…
Read more →Jun 17, 2026
It follows from the Rules of Proceedings that in constellations in which a plaintiff seeks a decision to eliminate the effects of a granted patent (be it with regard to the validity of the patent or the declaration that…
Read more →Jun 15, 2026
In principle, a party is always entitled to be represented jointly by a lawyer and a patent attorney before the UPC, i.e. by two representatives, Art 48(4) UPCA. An appeal procedure under R 220.2 RoP on a specific…
Read more →Jun 12, 2026
The Copenhagen Local Division ordered the preservation of evidence. During the implementation of the measure, the defendants refused access to critical IT systems contrary to the court order. The court then issued an…
Read more →Jun 11, 2026
The court may, when examining an allegation of added matter, of its own motion determine that the skilled person cannot derive a corresponding disclosure from the earlier application. This determination must be made on…
Read more →An order for recall, final removal from the channels of commerce and destruction is generally not considered for products that are only attacked by way of indirect patent infringement, as these are not "the…
Read more →Jun 8, 2026
The unconditional amendment of the Unitary Patent in the counterclaim proceedings has retroactive effect to the date of grant. However, the infringement of the national part of a European patent in a state that is not a…
Read more →A patent infringement is not excluded by the fact that a device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and that customers therefore regularly do not make use of the patented teaching, as long as the use of the…
Read more →Jun 4, 2026
An "infringer" within the meaning of Art. 63 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 25 UPCA is also a person who does not personally carry out the acts referred to in Art. 25 UPCA but to whom the acts of a third party are…
Read more →In separate proceedings in which the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity was referred by the Local Division to the Central Division (bifurcation), the Local Division is bound by the new wording of the claims…
Read more →A process claim drafted as a further independent claim and the corresponding description can only be relevant for determining the scope of protection of an independent product claim to the extent that there are…
Read more →The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the infringement action regarding the patent in suit because the plaintiff could not sufficiently demonstrate that the attacked embodiments implement the features of the patent. The…
Read more →May 28, 2026
The approach taken by the Unified Patent Court when establishing inventive step under Art 56 EPC is as follows:
Read more →May 27, 2026
If a product consists of different components, the allegedly infringing product must comprise each claimed component. Cases in which only certain features of a product are realised may be examples of indirect…
Read more →May 25, 2026
R 370.9 lit b RoP was amended with effect from 1 January 2026 and now provides for a refund of court fees of 50% if an action is withdrawn before the conclusion of the written procedure, instead of the previous 60%. The…
Read more →The fact that (most) parties are not resident in countries where the language of proceedings chosen by the plaintiff is an official language is an important factor when deciding on a request to change the language of…
Read more →May 21, 2026
Sufficiency of Disclosure under Art 138 Abs 1 lit i.c.w. Art 83 EPC has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole, thus on the basis of the claims, description and drawings, from the perspective of the…
Read more →May 20, 2026
The defendant and its intervener had lodged an appeal. The plaintiff declared the withdrawal of the appeal due to an out-of-court settlement in which the intervener was not involved. The intervener agreed to the…
Read more →The question of whether conclusions can be drawn from the subject matter of a dependent claim and its features when interpreting the main claim depends on the circumstances of the individual case. If the dependent claim…
Read more →The applicant requested access to pleadings and evidence from a concluded case in order to publish these documents on a subscription-based platform and thus promote the transparency of patent proceedings. The request is…
Read more →If an application to amend the patent is filed, the plaintiff must file a reply to the application to amend (R 43.3 RoP). Where appropriate in view of the proposed amendments, the reply may contain alternative arguments…
Read more →The plaintiff applied for a preliminary injunction approximately 4 months after the patent was granted. The plaintiff had known about the defendant's infringing products for some time, partly due to a parallel US…
Read more →Following the dismissal of the application for a preliminary injunction, the Brussels Local Division ordered the plaintiff to pay EUR 112,000 to the defendant as reimbursement of costs. A provisional costs award can…
Read more →The plaintiff filed two actions in April 2025 against the defendant for patent infringement in the field of 4G+ technologies and simultaneously applied for the protection of confidential information, in particular…
Read more →May 7, 2026
The applicant requests an order for an inspection and preservation of evidence at the respondent’s exhibition booth during the EMO Hannover 2025 trade fair. Based on brochures, videos, technical drawings, and an expert…
Read more →The appellant filed a new piece of evidence in the appeal proceedings as "highly confidential" (HC). The appellant requested confidential treatment from the public pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP, but did not file an…
Read more →According to Art 68(1) UPCA, the Court shall, on the request of the infringed party, order the infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in an infringing activity, to pay the injured party…
Read more →The applicant has applied for provisional measures. The respondent has filed a 470-page response. The court considers this disproportionate for provisional measures proceedings and orders the respondent to submit a…
Read more →Apr 29, 2026
The plaintiff and the defendant are internationally operating companies that operate worldwide and are therefore in a comparable situation with regard to their respective logistical and financial resources for…
Read more →Apr 16, 2026
Following the submission of the defendant’s reply, the plaintiff files a further brief containing a new subsidiary claim. The plaintiff justifies its additional subsidiary claims only in general terms, arguing that the…
Read more →Apr 16, 2026
In response to a request to protect confidential information, the defendant requested that the court permit the disclosure of confidential information in parallel proceedings between the same parties before the Munich I…
Read more →The patent in suit protects an enclosure for flower beds and lawns consisting of at least two sheet metal strips that can be connected to one another at their ends, which are folded over at least along their upper…
Read more →The patent in suit protects a piece of furniture designed to accommodate washing machines, in which a retaining element for a support panel is provided, consisting of an L-shaped metal strip. In the pieces of furniture…
Read more →The patent protects a glazing system comprising two aluminum profiles that create a secure space for holding the glass panel in place. The profiles feature a self-locking mechanism, wherein a grooved rubber beading…
Read more →The defendants’ representatives request that the deadline for lodging the Statement of grounds of appeal be extended by two weeks, as the patent attorney handling the case is unable to devote the necessary time and…
Read more →Mar 27, 2026
The plaintiff requests that the unredacted complaint and certain confidential exhibits be made available only to the defendant’s counsel. The trial court grants the request for confidentiality in part; in addition to…
Read more →Rule 91 RoP, which provides for an interlocutory revision by the EPO, does not apply to an expedited action against an EPO decision concerning an application to annul a decision rejecting a request for unitary effect.…
Read more →Mar 20, 2026
Following the oral hearing before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a request together with a written statement in which she summarized once again the main arguments she had presented at the hearing in response to…
Read more →In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for…
Read more →Mar 13, 2026
A need for interpretation of EU law in the context of application of the UPCA and/or the RoP can arise when, for instance, a provision of the UPCA or the RoP implements or relates to a directive, a regulation, or to an…
Read more →Where the grounds for the decision are not yet available, the assumption of a manifest error in the contested decision may, as a rule, only be made if the existence of an obvious error can be established without…
Read more →Mar 12, 2026
Pursuant to R 263.2 RoP, a request to amend the claim must be rejected if only one of the situations of exclusion set forth under (a) or (b) (delay or procedural delay) is met. Accordingly, the court must refuse to…
Read more →Mar 12, 2026
A change of claim by introducing a subsidiary claim shall be rejected if this broadens the claim of the dispute compared to what was previously submitted and asserted and no explanation is provided as to why this could…
Read more →The Hamburg Local Division dismissed an infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The plaintiff appealed and requested protection of confidential information pursuant to R 262A and R 262.2 VerfO. The…
Read more →The defendant obtained marketing authorization to distribute a generic drug in Portugal. In addition, the national health authority approved the defendant's request to supply public hospitals at an agreed price and…
Read more →Feb 19, 2026
The term “offering” within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA is to be interpreted autonomously. Offering is to be understood in an economic sense, not based on legal understanding of a binding contractual offer. Therefore,…
Read more →The alleged incompatibility of the legal bases of the UPC, in particular the provisions of the UPCA, with the requirements of European primary law in the form of the TEU and the TFEU, and the alleged invalidity of the…
Read more →The claimant requests that access to confidential information of the cost assessment proceedings (proof of legal fees) be restricted to the defendant and their lawyers. The application is granted. The defendant is…
Read more →Oct 31, 2025
Objections based on an alleged lack of knowledge are generally not taken into account. The Rules of Procedure do not recognize this form of submission (LK Düsseldorf 13. 5. 2025, CFI 505/2024).
Read more →If the Court of Appeal has made a decision on costs in the proceedings for the ordering of interim measures in accordance with R 242.1 RoP, an application for the assessment of costs in accordance with R 151 RoP is also…
Read more →On 5 August 2024, the claimant filed an action for patent infringement against a total of 14 defendants. The notice of the publication of the grant of the patent was published on 14 August 2024. On the same day, 14…
Read more →With regard to the right to information, the questions of temporal applicability and the period for which information is to be provided are to be distinguished from each other. The rights to information enshrined in the…
Read more →The claimant requests that the defendant cease infringement not only in the territory of France, but also in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The claimant relies on official reports from the judicial…
Read more →Oct 24, 2025
The defendant was informed of the service on 10 March 2025, the statement of claim was made available for collection at a branch of the German Post, he did not collect it within the following two weeks and did not…
Read more →The determination of the applicable substantive law in the case of an alleged infringement is to be strictly distinguished from the question of jurisdiction to decide on the action. When determining the applicable…
Read more →An order for the preservation and inspection of evidence can serve to secure evidence of individual acts of use. Even if R 196.1 RoP lists a large number of measures for the preservation of evidence, it is not an…
Read more →The inclusion of another member state in the list of countries for which a judgment for patent infringement is requested extends the scope of the original action. The claimant stated in their application that at the…
Read more →Oct 20, 2025
According to R 171 and 172 RoP, a party that relies on a fact that is disputed or could be disputed by the other side must specify the evidence. This means that every party filing a claim must compile the documents…
Read more →Financial compensation for the use of the published EP application also falls within the jurisdiction of the UPC (Article 32(1)(f) UPCA). Since such compensation is not regulated in either the EPatVO or the UPCA, the…
Read more →The applicant has a legitimate interest in the exchange of the security for costs. They originally decided to deposit the security for enforcement to ensure immediate enforcement of the preliminary injunction. It would…
Read more →Even if a strict literal interpretation of R 150 et seq. RoP does not necessarily suggest this, these provisions can apply to a costs decision after the dismissal of an application for a preliminary injunction,…
Read more →The infringement of a right of the patent proprietor is imminent within the meaning of Article 62(1) UPCA if the infringement has not yet occurred, but there are serious and tangible factual indications based on…
Read more →Questions of fact and law that are relevant both for jurisdiction under the UPCA in relation to the national courts of the Member States and for the merits of the action are generally not to be decided in the procedure…
Read more →R 30 RoP does not restrict the patent proprietor in their application for amendment of the patent to the prerequisite that the application and the corresponding auxiliary applications must be in direct connection with…
Read more →At the time the action was brought before the Munich Local Division, proceedings for the issuance of interim measures were pending between the same parties regarding the same patent before the Court of Appeal (the…
Read more →A declaration to cease and desist without a penalty clause by one or two, but not all defendants belonging to a corporate group and jointly infringing a patent, can not safeguard the patent proprietor's interest in the…
Read more →An objection under R 19 RoP can also be raised against a counterclaim for revocation. Article 33(2) UPCA is to be interpreted as meaning that this provision is not only applicable when an action is brought between the…
Read more →Article 33(1)(b) UPCA allows for suing several defendants at the domicile, principal place of business, or – if none exists – at the establishment of one of the defendants, provided that there is a business relationship…
Read more →According to the CJEU 25. 2. 2025, C-339/22, BSH Haushaltsgeräte, the UPC remains competent for infringement actions concerning patents in non-UPCA Member States even if the defendant disputes the validity of that…
Read more →The service of the application for interim measures with the support of the competent Chinese authority was unsuccessful, although the application could be sent by post to the competent Chinese authority and the…
Read more →The claimant demands that a third party in ancillary proceedings transmit information in accordance with R 191 Alt 2 RoP. The defendant and the third party objected to the requested information transmission, with the…
Read more →The patent in suit relates to arrangements in wireless networks. In particular, it relates to a method and a device for high-speed processing of protocol headers in an intermediate and/or destination node of a…
Read more →The applicant requests that they be permitted to take a measurement on a machine exhibited at a trade fair. Based on the information available to them so far, the applicant has plausibly demonstrated why they assume…
Read more →Sep 26, 2025
If the court determines that a party's representative cannot effectively represent them and grants the party a period of time to appoint a new representative, it may require that the appointment be accompanied by a…
Read more →If the court sees no reason to order security for the enforcement of interim measures on its own initiative, the defendant may nevertheless present arguments and facts demonstrating that the outcome could be different…
Read more →Pursuant to Article 60(1) UPCA, the court may, at the request of the applicant who has presented all reasonably available evidence to substantiate the claim that the patent has been or is at risk of being infringed,…
Read more →There are no transitional provisions in connection with Article 34 UPCA. When a signatory state of the UPC ratifies and accedes to the agreement, the application of Article 34 UPCA should take place automatically and…
Read more →To benefit from the deemed novelty under Article 54(5) EPC, claims for a second medical use must relate to a specific use in a method under Article 53(c) EPC. The only reason why such claims can be patentable lies in…
Read more →In the case of a claim for a second medical use, a substance or composition within the meaning of Article 54(4) EPC is used for a specific use that is not part of the state of the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a…
Read more →A transition from a market situation in which only one product is available to one in which two competing products are available is likely to lead not only to price pressure but also to permanent price erosion. This…
Read more →Product-by-process claims are characterized by the fact that the technical content of the invention does not regularly consist in the process as such, but in the technical properties that are conferred on the product by…
Read more →According to R 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall not be greater than is necessary to ensure the parties' rights to effective judicial protection and a fair trial. At least one natural…
Read more →To assess whether an invention is to be considered obvious in view of the state of the art, the problem-solution approach developed by the EPO should be applied as a priority – as far as possible – in order to increase…
Read more →Sep 12, 2025
Insofar as German law applies to a private right of prior use pursuant to Article 28 UPCA, it is necessary that a firm and final decision on the use of the claimed prior use was made before the priority date (LK…
Read more →Sep 11, 2025
Lawyers and patent attorneys are not exempt from the duty to represent when they are themselves a party in proceedings before the UPC. The duty to represent is an admissibility requirement that affects fundamental…
Read more →If a party bases its argument regarding the necessity and urgency exclusively or at least primarily on a single event or time window in which a patent infringement allegedly occurs – such as a trade fair or, as in the…
Read more →Before the UPC, neither a legal representative of a legal entity nor any other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within that legal entity - whether as a result of holding a senior…
Read more →Pursuant to Article 74(1) UPCA, an appeal does not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise upon a reasoned request by one of the parties. The Court of Appeal can therefore only grant the…
Read more →The written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the submission of a statement of grounds of appeal and a statement of defence in appeal proceedings. Additional grounds of appeal that are not submitted…
Read more →If a claimant files an action for revocation without the patent proprietor having given cause for the action, and the patent proprietor waives the patent immediately at the start of the proceedings, an exception may be…
Read more →An impermissible extension ("added matter") exists if the granted claim comprises subject matter that goes beyond the content of the original application. In order to determine whether an impermissible extension exists,…
Read more →As a general principle for the interpretation of patent claims, so-called "means-plus-function" features are to be understood as any embodiment capable of performing the function in question (UPC 14. 2. 2025, CoA…
Read more →Sep 4, 2025
The interpretation of a patent claim is a legal question. Therefore, the court cannot delegate the judicial task of claim interpretation to an expert, but must interpret the claim independently. The skilled person is a…
Read more →May 6, 2025
Under the UPCA, the Court must independently determine the criteria that must be met for an infringement to exist. The question to be answered is whether the defendants’ conduct indicates with a high degree of…
Read more →May 1, 2025
If a party believes that a technical argument must be supported by a private expert opinion, that party must present the technical argument to the Court in a concise and comprehensible manner. Merely referring to a…
Read more →Apr 29, 2025
Before the application for a preliminary injunction was filed with the Local Division Düsseldorf, one of the defendants had already brought an action for a negative declaration at the national level in the Netherlands…
Read more →Apr 24, 2025
The defendants argue that only the second defendant among the seven defendants performed acts in Germany, and therefore the Local Division Düsseldorf would lack competence with respect to the other defendants. However,…
Read more →Apr 22, 2025
The defendants request a review of the allocation of the technically qualified judge and the appointment of a new technically qualified judge with expertise in mechanical engineering. This request is rejected. There is…
Read more →Apr 17, 2025
The defendants request that certain exhibits be classified as confidential. The claimant objects, arguing that the exhibits merely refute the claimant’s assertions regarding how the challenged embodiments function,…
Read more →Apr 15, 2025
Regarding the differing case law on urgency (concerning R 208.2 (b) RoP) that grants the respondent only one month (Local Division Düsseldorf, 9 April 2024, Court of First Instance 452/2023), the Local Division Munich…
Read more →Apr 10, 2025
In proceedings for the issuance of provisional measures, it is not feasible to conduct a full examination of all arguments put forward against the validity of the patent in suit, which—like in revocation proceedings—can…
Read more →Apr 8, 2025
If the grounds for revocation only affect part of the patent in suit, the patent is limited by the corresponding amendment of the claims and partially revoked. Even in revocation proceedings before the Unified Patent…
Read more →Apr 3, 2025
An appeal against the refusal of interim measures generally does not justify staying the revocation proceedings. Rule 295(m) of the Rules of Procedure must be applied and interpreted in accordance with the principle…
Read more →Apr 1, 2025
In written proceedings, the Court may stay proceedings if the patent in suit is also the subject of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office and a swift decision from the European Patent Office is…
Read more →Mar 27, 2025
At any point during the proceedings and upon a reasoned application by a party, the Court may order the other party to provide appropriate security for the legal costs and other expenses incurred or to be incurred by…
Read more →If a request for access to written pleadings and evidence is made by a member of the public under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the interests of that member of the public who would gain access to the…
Read more →Mar 20, 2025
In principle, there is no reason to limit a party’s authorized representatives to a certain number or only to representatives admitted before the Unified Patent Court and their internal assistants, who must also be…
Read more →Mar 18, 2025
A party may apply to the Court at any stage of the proceedings for leave to change its claim. Such an application must state why this amendmenta) could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage,…
Read more →Mar 13, 2025
Initially, the claimant filed auxiliary requests for a limited defense of the patent in suit, which were restricted to the German part of the European patent. Subsequently, the claimant submitted an amendment request…
Read more →Mar 11, 2025
In the underlying proceedings, the claimant brought an action for patent infringement against several companies of the defendants’ corporate group. These companies also included the defendant in the now-separated and…
Read more →Mar 6, 2025
The applicant is the manufacturer of a color- and light-mixing lens system, which was sold by the defendants. None of the parties objected to the application for intervention submitted by the manufacturer of the…
Read more →Mar 4, 2025
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, just like a party, the intervener may file an application for the protection of…
Read more →Feb 27, 2025
A request to amend the patent in suit that covers both claims challenged by the revocation action and claims not challenged is (only) inadmissible with respect to the latter claims. In a situation where the patent in…
Read more →Feb 24, 2025
The independent product claim protects a pharmaceutical formulation of the anti-IgE antibody rhuMAb E25, characterized by the formulation comprising approximately 150 g/L of the anti-IgE antibody in 0.02 M histidine,…
Read more →Feb 19, 2025
The patent in suit concerns an invention in the field of communication systems and relates, in particular, to high-frequency transmitters used in such systems. The purpose of the patent in suit is to provide a…
Read more →In certain situations, a direct infringement of a device claim may be found if the infringer essentially “adopts” the acts of its customer as an extended workbench, making it inequitable from a policy standpoint to hold…
Read more →Feb 17, 2025
The respondent objects on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and competence. This is, because the parties are subject to a standstill agreement, which requires that one party notifies the other party of its intention to…
Read more →The waiting period under Rule 211.4 of the Rules of Procedure is calculated from the day on which the applicant became aware, or should have become aware, of the infringement to such an extent that they were in a…
Read more →After an infringement action was brought, the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation with the Local Division Munich. Two sister companies of the defendants also brought a revocation action before the Central…
Read more →Feb 10, 2025
In proceedings concerning SEPs, the defendants have, in parallel to their statement of defense and their counterclaim for revocation filed a request for order to produce evidence under R 190 RoP. In particular, the…
Read more →Feb 5, 2025
In exercising its discretion, the Court must determine, based on the facts and arguments presented by the parties, whether the financial situation of the claimant gives rise to legitimate and concrete concerns that any…
Read more →Feb 4, 2025
Article 7(2), in conjunction with Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, must be interpreted to mean that the Unified Patent Court has international competence over an infringement action if the European patent…
Read more →Feb 3, 2025
The defendants request that the claimant be required to provide security for the legal costs of the proceedings. The claimant is a Dutch llc with an issued capital of EUR 1; in addition, the claimant's business model is…
Read more →A nullity action was first brought before the Central Division Paris. Subsequently, the patent proprietor filed an infringement action against the nullity claimant. The nullity claimant then requested that the…
Read more →Jan 28, 2025
The fact that the parties are domiciled in countries where the procedural language chosen by the claimant is an official language is an important factor in deciding on an application to use the language of the patent as…
Read more →Jan 27, 2025
Oral proceedings as part of revocation proceedings concerning a patent in suit were scheduled for September 25, 2024; The patent in suit expires in January 2025. In a parallel opposition procedure, no hearing has yet…
Read more →Jan 22, 2025
The principles underlying the provision on the requirement to provide security for costs in Article 69(4) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court apply equally to proceedings at first instance and on appeal. A party…
Read more →The Local Division The Hague partially granted an injunction. The applicant (in first instance) had argued that the patent was valid and in force in the Member States of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (Germany,…
Read more →Jan 20, 2025
An intervener has the rights associated with the status of a party and participates in the proceedings, but with the proviso that - in accordance with R 313.2 RoP - the intervention is in support of at least part of a…
Read more →Jan 17, 2025
The claimant requested that the statements of claim be served on the Asian defendants by email pursuant to Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure or by public notice in the form of a written communication posted in…
Read more →Jan 14, 2025
The patent in suit protects an avalanche transceiver in which, among other things, a control unit is provided to drive a loudspeaker to output a voice message depending on an event, with the loudspeaker also being…
Read more →Jan 13, 2025
The claimant requests, in accordance with R 262A RoP that financial information provided in his response to a request for provision of security under R 158 RoP be treated confidentially. The request was granted. Only…
Read more →Jan 7, 2025
The claimant requests a production order directed against themselves in order to be enabled to produce two SEP (Standard Essential Patent) license agreements which they are prevented from producing on their own…
Read more →The claimant has brought infringement actions against 10 defendants, with defendants 1, 2, 7 and 8 being based in China. Pursuant to R 275.2 RoP, the Court may order that proceedings involving several defendants be…
Read more →Dec 9, 2024
The applicant files infringement action against 5 related companies; defendant 1 and 2 are based in China, defendant 3 in the Netherlands, defendant 4 in Germany and defendant 5 in Taiwan. The claimant argues that…
Read more →Dec 2, 2024
Pursuant to Art 51(2) UPCA, any division of the Court of First Instance shall, if a party so requests, provide interpretation, to the extent appropriate, to assist that party during oral proceedings. The aim of…
Read more →Dec 2, 2024
Jointly with another party the revocation claimants are defendants in infringement proceedings at the Munich Local Division. The other defendant brought a counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of the parties,…
Read more →The claimant requested that the Court rule that no further amendments may be filed. The Court sees no legal basis for preventing or categorically excluding the filing of further auxiliary requests or for instructing the…
Read more →Nov 25, 2024
The applicant requests that the period for filing a reply to the objection be extended and that the start of period for filing the reply be postponed until the finalization of the secrecy protection proceedings under R…
Read more →Nov 20, 2024
An action to a company established in Poland could not be served by post successfully. The Court orders an alternative method of service at the request of the claimant. The claimant is authorized to arrange service by…
Read more →Nov 20, 2024
The claimant filed 5 revocation actions. In each of these actions, the defendant (patent proprietor) was designated as "Juul Labs, Inc."; however, the correct name of the patent proprietor is "Juul Labs International,…
Read more →Nov 15, 2024
In accordance with the principle of procedural and cost efficiency as well as the principle of fair balance of legitimate interests of the parties – both of which have to be taken into account when interpreting RoP Art…
Read more →Oct 11, 2024
The Munich local division has ruled that the defendant in a proceeding about provisional measures has to bear the proceeding costs after it initially left a pre-litigation deadline for submitting a cease-and-desist…
Read more →Oct 11, 2024
The appellant appeals against a decision dismissing an application for provisional measures. The patent in suit protects an electronic label system for displaying information, in particular price information. The Court…
Read more →Sep 12, 2024
The claimant and appellant filed an application for preserving evidence and an application for inspection against the defendant. The Local Division of Milan granted both applications. The orders granting them were then…
Read more →The defendant filed a Preliminary objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties in accordance with R 20.2 RoP that the objection was to be dealt with in the main…
Read more →Aug 23, 2024
On May 31, 2024, Romania deposited the instrument of ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) with the Council of the European Union. The ratification took effect on September 1, 2024. Unitary…
Read more →Aug 23, 2024
A US company sued a (comparatively smaller) US company for an English-language patent before the Düsseldorf Local Division in German. The defendant requested according to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure that the…
Read more →Aug 19, 2024
The defendant filed an application for security for costs. The Court of First Instance dismissed the application. The defendant appeals and requests to expedite the appeal under R 225(e) and R 9.3 RoP and to shorten any…
Read more →Aug 12, 2024
In the impugned decision, the court dismissed both a request for a preliminary injunction and the action on the merits. The ‘Information about Appeal’ merely referred to the 2-month time limit for appeal on the merits.…
Read more →The appellant appeals against a dismissal order of the Court of First Instance on an application for a preliminary injunction. The patent in dispute protects an electronic label system for displaying information, in…
Read more →Aug 5, 2024
In accordance with the principles of procedural economy and cost efficiency as well as a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties, which are to be taken into account in the interpretation of the…
Read more →Aug 2, 2024
Vor etwas mehr als einem Jahr hat der UPC seine Tätigkeit aufgenommen. Im ersten Jahr sind bereits knapp 20 Entscheidungen und über 200 Anordnungen ergangen, in welchen in prozessualer Hinsicht, aber auch…
Read more →Aug 2, 2024
This decision concerns a procedural order of the Court of Appeal regarding the appeal fee for an appeal on the order to bear the costs of the proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 360 of the Rules of Procedure, the order of the…
Read more →Jun 17, 2024
In an appeal under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RP) concerning an order that proceedings brought by multiple plaintiffs or in respect of multiple patents be heard in separate proceedings, a request by the…
Read more →The Court of Appeal states that the interpretation has to be done according to Art 69 EPC and the corresponding protocol: The patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis under Art 69 EPC in…
Read more →Feb 29, 2024
Rule 262.1 (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court: The applicant made the request on behalf of an anonymous third party who was interested in the patent at issue and its legal validity (or lack…
Read more →Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court: Upon filing the statement of claim, no annexes were submitted. Instead, the statement of claim contains references indicating the intention to submit…
Read more →Article 33.4 Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: The requesting party and defendant in the main proceedings is requesting at the central division that the revocation action be rejected as inadmissible, since the…
Read more →Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court: In a proceeding with German as the language of the proceedings, the local division Munich, in accordance with Rule 7.1 Rules of Procedure, has determined…
Read more →Rule 211.1 and Rule 212.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court: The patent at issue protects a combination structure of bicycle frame and motor hub. The contested embodiment has been available for test…
Read more →Rule 17.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court: If the action involves a patent having more than one classification, the Registry assigns the action in accordance with Rule 345.3 Rules of Procedure to…
Read more →Rule 192 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court: During the International Textile Fair ITMA, which took place from June 8 to June 14, 2023, in Rho, Italy, the patent proprietor and applicant discovered…
Read more →Feb 20, 2023
After many delays, the launch date for the long-awaited European Unitary Patent system is finally set. According to a press release from the German Federal Ministry of Justice, Germany has ratified the Agreement on a…
Read more →Dec 6, 2022
The roadmap published by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) for the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) has been delayed. According to a new announcement, the start date will be postponed from…
Read more →Oct 14, 2022
With the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a common patent court for currently 17 EU member states (including Austria, Germany, Italy and France) has been created. A roadmap published by the UPC now gives for the first time a…
Read more →
We keep a close eye on recent legal developments, provide up-to-date advice, and develop strategies that turn new decisions to your advantage.
Contact us →