Deutsche Telekom raised a FRAND defence, based on a licence offer made by its supplier HTC that was (discussed below) dismissed.

It is sufficient that the advertisement invites consumers in Germany in which that work enjoys copyright protection to purchase it.

An application to remove an unauthorised application to opt out pursuant to R. 5A RoP must

In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal...

An unconditional application to reduce the amount of damages claimed shall be considered as an unconditional application under Rule 263.3 RoP.

The original version of a claim of an European patent and any amendments made thereto during the grant proceedings can be used as aid for interpreting the claim.

Companies may face judicial proceedings not only in the country in which they are headquartered.

Sometimes companies use images or names of public figures in their advertising without seeking a license.

On 6 October 2015, the CJEU (case no. C-362/14) has declared the Commission's 2000 decision on Safe Harbor concerning the transfer of personal data from the EU to the USA to be invalid, with immediate effect.

According to a decision published February 10, 2016, the German Federal Fiscal Court submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court the question whether or not the interest barrier rule is unconstitutional (I R 20/15).

Targets relevant for the payment of a variable remuneration that are not set towards the employee until more than three quarters of the financial year have passed can no longer fulfil their...

On 14 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (X ZR 29/15 "Pemetrexed") confirmed prior decisions in which it held that patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents can, in principle, not be assumed, ..

Money-back guarantees reduce the barrier for purchase considerably and help to build trust, which makes them an extremely powerful marketing tool.

On May 12, 2026, the Cartel Division (Kartellsenat) of the BGH handed down a landmark ruling on the limits of bundled cartel damages claims brought by claims collection vehicles.

Although R.223.5 RoP provides that there shall be no suspensive effect for an order pursuant to (amongst other) R.220.2 RoP...

Unitary effect under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 requires a patent to be granted for all UPC Member States; a "carve-out" for non-designated states is not permissible.

When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a consistent application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure or any other objective of the discretionary review (CoA, UPC_CoA_489/2024, order of 6 September 2024, Motorola v. Ericsson, para. 4; UPC_CoA_805/2025, order of 1 September 2025, Centripetal v. Keysight, paras. 8 and 11)

In principle, pursuant to Rule 250 RoP, the court may waive payment of the fee for a rehearing in the circumstances contemplated by Rule 245.2(a) or (b) RoP (fundamental procedural defect or criminal offence).

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal examines procedural rules governing appeals in patent litigation between Lionra Technologies Ltd. and Cisco Systems. This case involves the interpretation and application of specific Rules of Procedure in the context of an appeal from a first instance decision concerning European Patent EP 2 201 740.

Art. 83(3) UPCA must be interpreted such that a valid opt out application requires that it is lodged by or on behalf of all proprietors of all national parts of a European patent...