The latest on the UPC
Showing
No Declaration of Non-Infringement for Alternative Product
HL Display v. Black Sheep UPC_CFI_386/2024 (The Hague LD), decision of 10 October 2025 [1] Summary The Unified Patent Court rejected Black Sheep’s request for a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) for an alternative product design. The co...
UPC sets out Guidelines for Penalty Payments
Kodak v. Fujifilm (UPC CoA 699/2025, order of 14 October 2025)[1] According to Art. 82(2) UPCA and Rule 354.3 RoP, a party may be sanctioned with a recurring penalty payment, payable to the UPC, if the party does not comply with the terms of an order...
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of EP2387547, which Brita says protects its replaceable...
UPC takes strict approach on costs reimbursement
Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent infringement of its patent EP4201327, which relates to insul...
Apple Intervenes in Confidentiality Appeals: UPC Court of Appeal Allows Intervention in Ericsson and Sun Patent Trust Cases
Apple (Intervener) in Ericsson v. AsusTek and Apple (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v. Vivo UPC_CoA_631/2025[1], UPC_CoA_632/2025[2], UPC_CoA_755/2025[3], and UPC_CoA_757/2025[4] – Orders of 23 September 2025 In a cluster of orders issued on...
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
The Expected Timeline The preamble to the Rules of Procedure sets out the lofty aim that “proceedings shall be conducted in a way which will normally allow the final oral hearing on the issues of infringement and validity at first instance to ta...
Emerging Practice Points from the UPC
Jurisdiction Recent cases have shown that the UPC has a broad jurisdiction, perhaps wider than many had expected, both in terms of geographical and temporal reach. The UPC has jurisdiction beyond the signatory states. The UPC has jurisdiction to h...
UPC Agreement Is Not EU Law, No Referrals to CJEU
expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to interpret the UPC Agreement and Rules of Procedure. T...
Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology
UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. was found to have infringed European Patent EP391224...
No breach of Inspection Order by Respondent who refused access
Centripetal Limited v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. UPC_CFI_636/2025 Decision of 25 July 2025 (ORD_32958/2025[1]) A recent procedural issue in an infringement case before the Local Division in Mannheim has highlighted the importance of precision when r...
Edwards v Meril – The Interaction of Parallel UPC and EPO Proceedings
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited et al. (UPC_CFI_380/2023) Decision of 21 July 2025 (ORD_598566/2023)[1] What happens when a European Patent Office opposition is pending at the same time as a UPC action? And what h...
Unlocking UPC Success: A Five-Step Framework
What is the UPC? The UPC is a new pan-European court which opened for business on 1 June 2023. It adjudicates disputes relating to European patents (unless they have been opted out), including unitary patents. Instead of litigating country-by-country,...
Milan Central Division issues Decision by Default, Clarifying the Requirements
EOFLOW v INSULET UPC_CFI_597/2024 Decision of 22 July 2025 (ORD_69390/2024[1] and ORD_69391/2024[2]) This decision, granting a decision by default against EOFLOW after EOFLOW declined to pay the security for costs that the court had ordered, shows ...
UPC Court of Appeal sets out criteria for evidence preservation and inspection orders
UPC Court of Appeal sets out criteria for evidence preservation and inspection orders Valinea Energie SASU v Tiru SAS (UPC_COA_002/2025) and Maguin SAS v Tiru SAS (UPC_COA_327/2025) Court of Appeal Decisions dated 15 July 2025 (PC-CoA-002/2025 and...
UPC grants provisional injunction and clarifies intermediary liability
Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (UPC_CFI_213/2025 relating to EP2892442B1) Order of 10 July 2025 (ORD_32728/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court relates t...
The UPC expands its jurisdiction limits by granting its first UK injunction
Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH UPC_CFI_359/2023 and UPC_CFI_365/2023 Orders of 18 July 2025 The UPC has begun to shape the contours of European patent litigation following the landmark ECJ ...
Brussels LD Grants Evidence Preservation and Inspection Order in Pertuzumab Biosimilar Dispute
Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG v Organon & Co, Organon Heist B.V. NV Organon & Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and 408/2025) Orders dated 30 May 2025 (ORD_23125/2025 and ORD_23121/2025)[1] This concerns...
UPC Clarifies Time Limit Flexibility in Nanoval v ALD
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025 relating to EP3083107) Order of 22 July 2025 (ORD_25245/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court relates to EP3083107. On 3 February...
Court of Appeal Clarifies UPC rules on decisions by default
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation UPC_CoA_363/2025 Decision of 12 July 2025 ORD_32844/2025[1] The UPC Court of Appeal has corrected a lower court’s misunderstanding of the requirements for a decision by ...
UPC Court of Appeal Clarifies Limits on Security for Costs in Emboline v. AorticLab
In a significant ruling before the Unified Patent Court (UPC)[1], the Court of Appeal has clarified that a claimant in an infringement action cannot request security for costs from a defendant who files a counterclaim for revocation. The decision, issu...
UPC refuses extension of deadline for review of seizure order after refusal of service
Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC decision we previously reported here [2]. This Dec...