Whether the subject matter of the granted claim extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed is determined by considering what information...

If the appellant takes full advantage of the 15-day deadline for lodging the Statement of appeal and the Statement of grounds of appeal pursuant...

A request to expedite appeal proceedings, namely a request to shorten any deadlines where possible pursuant to R. 225(e), R.9.3 RoP,

Le 16 septembre 2021 est entrée en vigueur la loi du 15 juillet 2021 portant modification du Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile (NCPC).

A new decade is upon us, and its first two months have veered between ordinary and chaotic. Somewhere in the middle of that spectrum lie a handful of developments relevant to the field of Intellectual Property.

Cost apportionment where success is achieved on only one of several patents at issue: The unsuccessful party may be ordered to bear costs specifically attributable to “its” patent (Art. 69(2) UPCA)

The court reaffirms the rulings in UPC_CoA_405/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Amgen, and UPC_CoA_402/2024, decision of 19 June 2025, Alexion vs Samsung.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court examines the stringent requirements for granting suspensive effect under Article 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223.2 RoP in patent litigation. This decision clarifies when an applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo during an appeal can exceptionally outweigh the respondent's interests in cost proceedings related to revocation actions.

This is in accordance with the principles of procedural economy and cost efficiency as well as a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties...

The application for suspensive effect is admissible but must be dismissed as unfounded.

A discretionary review by the Court of Appeal pursuant to R.220.3 RoP is only admissible if leave to appeal against the impugned order is required (R.220.2 RoP (1))...

Suspensive effect of an appeal may be granted if the order against which the appeal is directed is evidently erroneous.

R. 222.2 RoP only allows the Court of Appeal to disregard new facts and evidence, not new legal arguments. Since claim construction is a question of law, the appellant could challenge the first instance’s claim interpretation by raising a new legal argument on appeal.

On December 6, 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) finally issued a decision on the compatibility of article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)...

Judge-rapporteur can issue an order for security of costs. There is no wording in R. 158 RoP that such orders shall be adopted by the panel.

A stay under R. 21.2 RoP requires an appeal against a preliminary objection decision.

On 1 July 2025, the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague 2019 Convention") will enter into force in the United Kingdom.

After the first instance infringement decision was appealed, the decision on withdrawal is within the competence of the CoA. According to R. 265.1 RoP, the decision of the first instance is not final.

This may be done separately, and is advisable if an order is required urgently. It cannot however be inferred from R.223 RoP that the lodging in a separate workflow is a requirement...

Failing to contest jurisdiction in first instance forecloses the objection on appeal (Art. 26(1) Brussels I Recast, R. 19.7 RoP).