LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026

A German court has ruled that Suno, a platform generating music from text prompts, infringed copyright by training its AI model on protected works without authorization.

A Munich court has held that three AI‑generated logos lacked the required level of human creative input to qualify for copyright protection. Although prompts were used, the judges found that the AI's technical...

German utility models offer a unique pathway to intellectual property protection, providing registration within weeks rather than the years typically required for patent approval. This expedited process presents strategic advantages for innovators seeking rapid market protection in Germany's robust IP framework.

The UPC Court of Appeal has established groundbreaking precedent on international jurisdiction over non-EU manufacturers in two parallel patent infringement cases involving Abbott Diabetes Care, Chinese manufacturer Sinocare, and Italian distributor Menarini.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.

The EU Pharmaceutical Package represents the most significant reform of EU pharmaceutical law in over twenty years, but what does it mean for parallel imports of medicines? This analysis examines how the Package affects the regulatory framework for parallel trade, from repackaging requirements to shortage management and electronic package leaflets.

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

Germany's highest civil court has ruled that an unlicensed sample from Kraftwerk's 1977 track "Metall auf Metall" used in a hip hop song qualifies as lawful pastiche under EU copyright law. This landmark decision, concluding a nearly 30-year legal dispute, establishes new parameters for when sampling can constitute creative engagement rather than mere copying, though it stops short of providing blanket protection for all unauthorized samples.

A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP)

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under copyright law. The decision examines whether a two-second rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk's 1977 recording, used repeatedly in a 1997 song, constitutes permissible artistic dialogue or copyright infringement.

German utility models offer a unique pathway to intellectual property protection, providing registration within weeks rather than the years typically required for patent approval. This expedited process presents strategic advantages for innovators seeking rapid market protection in Germany's robust IP framework.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

A licence defence under Art. 25 UPCA must be substantiated within the UPC proceedings themselves; mere references to submissions in parallel national proceedings are insufficient (Art. 25 UPCA, R. 24 RoP)

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

Dyson Technology Limited has filed an application for provisional measures at the UPC Hamburg against multiple Dreame entities and distributors, involving European Patent 3,119,235. The case raises questions about jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation and the interplay between UPC procedural rules and EU regulations in cross-border patent disputes.

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.

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

A revocation action has been filed at the Central Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court challenging the validity of European Patent EP 2 649 380 B1. The case involves WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna as claimant against VILPE Oy as defendant, with proceedings examining grounds for revocation under the European Patent Convention and UPC Agreement provisions.

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.