The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance's order requiring the appellant to provide €300,000 as security for the respondent's costs (Art. 69 UPCA, R. 158 RoP).

The Applicant was permitted to intervene in the appeal proceedings because confidential information about its business agreements was at risk of disclosure due to the contested orders.

An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the order against which the appeal is directed contitutes obvious errors, or if the enforcement of the appealed order...

The court confirms the principles on claim construction: The patent claim is not only the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent...

At the time of the patent application, the patent applicant had offered to grant licenses to use its patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.

Although February is relatively short, the Court of First Instance received 19 new infringement actions during its course. For context, this was the second highest monthly figure since the inception of the UPC...

Non-compliance with a contract's jurisdiction clause may expose a claimant to a claim for damages in Germany

The two Defendants in the infringement proceedings pending before the Munich Local Division filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent at issue.

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.

An order by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 262A RoP also applies to the appeal 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).

A recent ruling of the German federal court of justice leaves providers of online review platforms in a state of shock, which could extend beyond that country's borders as the judgment...

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.

According to a press release of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband; ‘vzbv') dated 19 July 2017, the German Federal Supreme Court (‘FSC')...

Whether an IAP should be obliged to prevent its users from accessing websites that contain illegal content or unauthorized download links to copyright-protected works is a highly controversial matter in Germany and Europe.

While the intervener is to be treated as a party pursuant to Rule 315.4 RoP and may be liable for cost reimbursement as such, this is a different question from whether they have to provide...

The Court of Appeal examines whether an application for suspensive effect can be withdrawn when no final decision has been issued and the opposing party provides consent, addressing the procedural requirements under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure applied mutatis mutandis.

A supplier’s potential liability from a defendant’s recourse claim constitutes a “direct and present interest” to intervene in an infringement action under R. 313.1 RoP

For late-stage interim relief requests (Art. 62 UPCA, R. 206-211 RoP), urgency has a specific meaning: the applicant must prove a new, escalating risk justifying immediate action.