Market Intelligence

Inventive Step: Starting Points Evaluated as a Whole and Strict Thresholds for Combinations (Art. 56 EPC)

Discretionary decisions on belated patent amendments under Rules 30.2 and 263 RoP are subject to limited appellate review

Like Panel 1 of the LD Düsseldorf (cf. UPC_CFI_807/2024, decision of May 27, 2026), Panel 2 of the LD Düsseldorf applies the assessment criteria for equivalence under patent law established by the LD The Hague (UPC_CFI_239/2023, decision of November 22, 2024; UPC_CFI_479/2025, order of September 11, 2025), as, pursuant to Panel 2, these criteria form a coherent framework and, as such, are suitable for the assessment of equivalence.

Public prior use: Making available a manufacturing method by use pursuant to Art. 54(2) EPC

Claims introduced for the first time during the interim proceedings in the infringement action, based on the scope of the patent in dispute within the framework of the auxiliary requests and the related submission of facts, are not admissible

The UPC’s “inherent” jurisdiction to ensure its effectiveness: The jurisdiction extends to the abusive use of divisional applications. In revocation proceedings or actions for declaration of non-infringement, the court may decline to dispose of the action (Rule 360 RoP) and determine that a patent lacked inventive step, notwithstanding its withdrawal by the patentee