A case is not "pending before a division of the Court of First Instance" pursuant to Art. 33(2) UPCA, if it is pending in the appeal instance. It is pending before the Court of Appeal if the appeal was filed there.

The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR). A prerequisite for accepting jurisdiction is that there must be a connection to the addressed court, which follows from Recitals 13-15 of the BR.

A member of the public does not bear the costs of a request for access to written pleadings and evidence...

In the appeal proceedings against the decision of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division regarding access to written pleadings and evidence of the Ocado vs. AutoStore case...

ASICS darf Händlern der eigenen Produkte die Nutzung von Preisvergleichsmaschinen nicht generell untersagen, so der BGH in einer nunmehr veröffentlichten Entscheidung aus dem Dezember 2017.

A member of the public who requests access to the Register pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP is a "Party" pursuant to R.8.1 RoP and, thus, must be represented before the UPC by an authorised representative (pursuant to Art. 48 UPCA)

The FSC expressly highlights that the scope of such monitoring duties will depend on the specific facts of the case.

All service outside the contracting member states is covered by section 2, i.e. Rules 273 and 274 RoP.

In its decision of 14 January 2020 (case ref. VI ZR 496/18 and others), the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) decided that filtering user ratings

Application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises implies a request to disclose the report on the outcome...

The recent judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in "BSH versus Electrolux" strengthens the options for cross-border patent litigation. What are the implications for the Unified Patent Court...

Das Bundesjustizministerium hat mit dem „Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung eines Leitentscheidungsverfahren beim Bundesgerichtshof" vom 14.

The plaintiff, a consumer, sent a notice termination to the defendant, an insurance company.

What happens when a single lawsuit bundles 70,000 individual antitrust damages claims? Germany's Federal Court of Justice has now answered that question, with important implications for competition litigation and litigation funding alike.

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of additional auxiliary requests in parallel appeals brought by Advanced Brain Monitoring against Philips entities. The decision interprets Article 73(4) UPCA and Rule 222.2 RoP in the context of patent revocation proceedings involving EP 2 437 696 B2.

A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not preclude giving such decision. R. 355.2 RoP thus only applies when a decision by default is sought “against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim”.

Exception to the rule of no suspensive effect for appeals against first-instance orders granting access to files...

The UPC Court of Appeal addresses a critical question of cost allocation when a patent holder surrenders their patent immediately after a revocation action is initiated. This case examines whether a claimant who files for revocation must bear the costs when the defendant offers no resistance and surrenders the patent at the outset of proceedings.

In a landmark decision, the German Federal Court of Justice has clarified the standard of proof required for justifying legislative restrictions on the EU's four freedoms in civil proceedings (I ZR 74/24 – Arzneimittel-Check).

When deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account.