The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court has adopted The Hague's four-step equivalence test in a patent dispute between Wonderland Nurserygoods and Cybex.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has issued three significant procedural rulings addressing the admissibility of late invalidity attacks, the scope of withdrawal provisions, and the proper forum for cost decision applications. These decisions clarify critical procedural requirements that will impact litigation strategy before the UPC.

Place of Jurisdiction – EU-Law – Brussels I Regulation – Product liability (Austria /Germany).

The UPC Court of Appeal has overturned a €2 million security for costs order, finding that a claimant's litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement provides sufficient protection against unenforceability of adverse costs orders. This landmark decision addresses whether appropriate litigation insurance can substitute for traditional security mechanisms and signals that courts must properly consider such policies when assessing security applications.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has reached a significant milestone in its development, with the past six months bringing crucial harmonisation through Court of Appeal decisions, particularly regarding...

Germany has enacted reforms establishing specialised international commercial court chambers that allow English-language proceedings and streamlined appeals directly to the Federal Court of Justice. This development positions German state courts as a competitive alternative to arbitration for cross-border commercial disputes, prompting parties to reassess their dispute resolution strategies in contracts with a German nexus.

The UPC Rules of Procedure also provide for separate proceedings on the amount of damages. How will they differ from German damages proceedings? How may these differences impact the parties' conduct?

Pre-insolvency restructurings can fail when individual creditors block viable solutions to negotiate better outcomes. The insolvency plan's cram-down mechanism enables court confirmation despite dissenting votes, provided dissenting groups receive legal protection and aren't unduly disadvantaged. Understanding cram-down logic helps stakeholders assess restructuring options and risks before insolvency occurs.

Invalidating all relevant claims of the patent-in-suit, the Federal Patent Court of Germany handed down a decision for Ranbaxy Laboratories’ German subsidiary Basics GmbH in its case against Warner Lambert’s European Patent 0,409,281 (EP ’281) owned by Pfizer [Reference-No: 3 Ni 36/05 (EU)].

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court has confirmed a settlement agreement between OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH and ANCA Europe GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864. This procedural confirmation follows Rule 365(1) Sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, marking the formal conclusion of the dispute between the parties.

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.

The determination of the date of service of the complaint and the grant of an extension of the deadline for the statement of defense in agreement with parties is possible.

In the past months, the coronavirus has had a firm grip on public life.

Sypox GmbH has initiated revocation proceedings against Topsoe A/S at the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Munich, challenging the validity of European Patent EP 3 802 413. The case, designated UPC_CFI_894/2026, involves procedural matters under Rule 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 58 of the UPC Agreement.

R. 352.2 RoP directly concerns the release of a security for enforcement but should be applied by way of analogy in a case in which security for legal costs...

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.

If the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are withdrawn by the parties, 60% of the court fees can be reimbursed.

The Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a panel review in a patent infringement case between Advanced Standard Communication LLC and Xiaomi entities concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 69(4) of the UPC Agreement.

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