UPC: Munich Local Chamber on Claim Amendments and Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation

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 that it does not constitute an amendment of a claim within the meaning of Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court if, after the defendant's defense, the contested product turns out to differ in technical details from how the plaintiff had described it in the statement of claim. If the plaintiff, in its reply, bases the infringement allegation on the technical operation described by the defendant, this does not constitute an amendment, provided that the infringement attack still refers to the generally described product and its contested function. Furthermore, the Chamber confirmed that it is procedurally permissible for a defendant in an infringement action to file a counterclaim for revocation subject to the resolutive condition that the infringement action is unsuccessful. If this condition is met because the patent in suit is not infringed (irrespective of its validity), there is no longer a need to decide on the counterclaim for revocation. (LC Munich 11.3.2026, CFI 180/2025, CFI 210/2025)