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.

In a judgment dated 31 March 2016 the Düsseldorf Regional Court (docket number 4a O 73/14), granted Saint Lawrence Communications ("SLC") an injunction against Vodafone to restrain the offering/selling of smartphones.

In 2013, several artists and music production companies filed a constitutional complaint with the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) against two Federal Court of Justice that held that the sampling of a two-second sequence of rhythms was not admissible under the German Copyright Act (UrhG).

Am 17. Oktober 2018 hat der Bundesgerichtshof die Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde von Bigben Interactive GmbH und Bigben Interactive S.A. (I ZR 28/18) gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen ein ...

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...

With this decision the LD Düsseldorf applied Rule 37.2 RoP and determined prior to the closure of the written procedure to proceed with both the action for infringement...

A concurrence of the deadlines for the reply to the Statement of defense and the Defense to a Counterclaim for revocation...

If an employer wishes to end an employment relationship, it can do so either by terminating the employee and trying to conclude a so-called settlement agreement or by trying to conclude a mutually acceptable severance agreement with the employee.

In Germany, as in many other countries, the promises of generative AI have been widely promoted by Legal Tech providers. This raises the question: are the long-awaited efficiency gains finally within reach?

The decision on a R. 323 RoP (Art. 49(5) UPCA) request to change the language of proceedings into the language of the patent shall be based on all relevant circumstances...

This page appears to be a security verification checkpoint that temporarily blocks access while validating the incoming request. The system implements protective measures to distinguish legitimate users from automated traffic or potential security threats.

The applicable version of the RoP is determined by the filing date of the action, not by the date of subsequent procedural steps (Art. 5 of the Administrative Committee’s decision of 4 November 2025)

The decision whether or not to change the language of the proceedings into the language in which the patent was granted shall be determined with regard to the respective interests at stake...

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...

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